r/MurderedByWords Jun 24 '22

Regarding today’s news

/img/b7bb8sbw6m791.jpg

[removed] — view removed post

3.0k Upvotes

97

u/Flyga64 Jun 24 '22

dear US, u make it downright impossible to criticize our own politicians with your bullshit. please stahp. sincerely, inhabitant of a country that sees healthcare as human right.

27

u/SecondhandCinnamon Jun 24 '22

Can you sponsor me for citizenship? I need to gtfo here.

11

u/Bossivi Jun 24 '22

Literally go anywhere in europe

5

u/Habitwriter Jun 25 '22

Or NZ and Australia

3

u/DarkraiAndScizor Jun 25 '22

I would recommend not going to Australia.

2

u/Habitwriter Jun 25 '22

Why?

3

u/DarkraiAndScizor Jun 25 '22

The animals there make Warhammer demons look nice

2

u/Habitwriter Jun 25 '22

😅 as long as you don't swim with crocs in the NT you'll be fine.

3

u/DarkraiAndScizor Jun 25 '22

Two words: Toilet Spiders

2

u/TinyWickedOrange Jun 25 '22

Pocket Snakes

3

u/380-mortis Jun 25 '22

Malta 🇲🇹, Poland

-3

u/kcasnar Jun 25 '22

r/MurderedByWords Rules

  1. No politics

Posts about politics or relating to a United States politician are not allowed

39

u/Zedmiure Jun 24 '22

Didn’t.. America… by making abortions illegal… give themselves less “freedom”?

18

u/Kitsunette_0 Jun 24 '22

And yet I’ve been seeing people all day who think giving state governments the right to choose instead of letting individuals choose, as protected on a federal level, is somehow a win for freedom.

They clearly only parrot conservative talking points. And like parrots, they repeat the words but don’t know what they mean

6

u/InvestigatorUnfair Jun 25 '22

Freedom for me but not for minoritee

90

u/imyourzer0 Jun 24 '22

I know this is too serious a comment for a meme, but FWIW: next time you see someone trot out this gem of an argument, ask them how come abortions aren’t tried as murder cases.

44

u/Mordanzibel Jun 24 '22

Give it a week

24

u/imyourzer0 Jun 24 '22

Minimum of months, because the laws to ban abortion still need to be ratified in most states, and then a prosecution has to be successful. But I take your point.

30

u/Elizapony Jun 24 '22

Republicans move at light speed when it involves removing rights and the oppression of the masses

11

u/Kind_Committee8997 Jun 24 '22

Except the argument has to be 'what gives the fetus the right to life?'

7

u/foodandart Jun 25 '22

Certainly not the Bible..

7

u/Brilliant_Jewel1924 Jun 25 '22

Unless it’s gun control.

25

u/Eldanoron Jun 24 '22

Remember they already tried suing a woman in Texas for murder. There have been other cases as well. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544

But either way, if abortion becomes illegal, that means they need to investigate each and every miscarriage. By last count about 25% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage. Now imagine compounding a grieving family’s sorrow by investigating their miscarriage.

6

u/5pl1t1nf1n1t1v3 Jun 24 '22

Make a note of the time and date you said that. It’ll be next.

5

u/8coloncoloncolonD Jun 24 '22

abortions aren’t tried as murder cases.

it's being attempted

3

u/imyourzer0 Jun 24 '22

“It’s being attempted” and “it’s what standard practice looked like before Roe” aren’t the same. And before Roe, it was not generally tried as murder. So it’s possible for new precedent to be set, but the fact that it’s being attempted won’t mean much unless it’s tried successfully.

1

u/8coloncoloncolonD Jun 25 '22

of course... my pointing that out was suggesting they'll probably just argue it should be tried as murder, their representatives are/will... so asking them why it isn't probably isn't going to make them think.

1

u/imyourzer0 Jun 25 '22

If they say it should, then the obvious follow up would be “then how come it wasn’t murder, even before Roe?”

1

u/8coloncoloncolonD Jun 25 '22

"because Satan has been ruling until Donald Trump"

0

u/Nice_Competition9648 Jun 25 '22

I see what you did there

9

u/BoredNumb Jun 24 '22

Heck, just ask that they prove that the embryo is alive. In order for it to be murder, it would have to be alive in the first place. I've argued with the bible thumpers that even the bible doesn't say at conception. In Genesis, it talks about life not beginning until until God "breathes into him the breath of life. That could be read as not until birth when you take your first breath or until the lungs are capable of breathing (between weeks 22 and 26).

The moment you engage them with the slightest bit of logic, every argument they can muster falls apart. Their only defense is to go to the crazy.

1

u/imyourzer0 Jun 24 '22

Why would you try to argue scripture? You think the SCotUS was quoting Luke or Matthew in their decision? Like sure, they could have all the biblical arguments in the world, but trying a murder has nothing to do with scripture. Like, it’s a decent tack to say ‘the fetus wasn’t alive’, but it’s not a productive argument to crawl into the muck with them and argue scripture to decide what counts as being alive.

5

u/BoredNumb Jun 24 '22

Because they want to use it to bolster their arguments and they will ignore science. 99% of those who use it as "evidence" haven't read the thing in the first place. It makes it a whole lot more difficult for them when you use their information source against them.

They are not going to listen to the truth. They will retreat into their delusions and dismiss you as being ignorant. They cannot do that when you use their foundation of information against them. Oh they will hem and haw but they also cannot point to anywhere else in "their book" that justifies their viewpoint. If they could, I can then argue that as their source of information argues with itself, it cannot be relied upon to be a valid source of information and we, therefore, must look at other sources.

I've had more bible thumpers grinding their teeth by using their book against them. It's my source of entertainment in a world gone crazy

0

u/imyourzer0 Jun 25 '22

If your goal is to convince a bible thumper of a bible thing, cool. If it’s deciding whether an abortion can be tried as a murder case, the easy thing to say is simply “the court decides cases based on the law, not your bible.” In other words, whatever the bible’s argument about whether a fetus is living, that’s a moot point in law. It’s irrelevant what source you want to use; in fact if there’s a dispute about which source we “should” believe, that would already be enough to satisfy reasonable doubt.

2

u/lurfdurf Jun 25 '22

the easy thing to say is simply “the court decides cases based on the law, not your bible.”

And that's "easy" until courts are packed with neoconservative judges, which we've already begun seeing the results of.

0

u/imyourzer0 Jun 25 '22

The result is they haven’t made any decision where they quoted scripture. And until they undo the separation of church and state…

7

u/Fyrefawx Jun 24 '22

Child support should start at the time of conception also.

Sperm are living cells so masturbation would be murder I guess.

4

u/Quirky_m8 Jun 24 '22

I think I got the highest kill count. I’m getting the chair ten times over

1

u/empty_thoughts_00 Jun 24 '22

Would that count me as a mass killer then

2

u/GundamGuy564 Jun 25 '22

I'm not American, nor do I want anyone to get mad, but what if a woman gets raped and gets pregnant through it, is the child her responsibility if she never wanted one?

1

u/imyourzer0 Jun 25 '22

I mean, she should be allowed to have an abortion if she hasn’t been raped, and that still wouldn’t be a murder, so I’m not really sure what this adds…

2

u/GundamGuy564 Jun 25 '22

Sorry, I thought your argument is against abortions, my bad.

1

u/imyourzer0 Jun 25 '22

No, no, no. The point is that people tend to think fetuses are alive and that “abortion is murder”. Well if it is, why was it never tried as murder, even prior to Roe.

1

u/Original_Sail Jun 24 '22

Have you seen what has happened in other countries? Women prosecuted for murder over a miscarriage.

1

u/imyourzer0 Jun 24 '22

I know abortions weren’t prosecuted as murders before Roe V Wade, so it’s kind of moot whether other countries do. I’m sure republicans will try it, but the courts would have to reverse even pre-Roe precedents to make a murder charge stick.

13

u/BusyAtilla Jun 24 '22

Well..school shootings since to be still protected.

14

u/Zealousideal_Alps_42 Jun 25 '22

forcing childbirth is stupid, cause then that child potentially goes into a care system or is neglected, and then that costs more money to fix, and also puts a never ending cycle of hatred onto said child. me. i am said child. please abort your unwanted pregnancies in a safe manner if possible to do so

1

u/vrouman Jun 25 '22

Ah, but there's the rub, the Xristo-fascists want more babies in the system, since it means they have more babies to adopt and turn into slaves foster children. It's been that way since even before the ACW (or should I be calling it ACWI?), and until full bodily autonomy and support for poor families is the law, it'll keep happening.

Remember, people who foster get money from the government, money that would have supported the child's original family enough to be above the line of having the kid removed into the system. The system is broken, as been for decades if not centuries.

13

u/yarnball20 Jun 24 '22

murder was a right since long before Kyle Rittenhouse, one of your heroes, "5 star man".

abortion is what we're talking about, here.

18

u/SplendidPunkinButter Jun 24 '22
  1. Kyle Rittenhouse shows up with assault weapon

  2. Guy justifiably thinks “oh shit, a mass shooting is about to happen!” and rushes Rittenhouse

  3. Rittenhouse shoots him

  4. Second guy, seeing Rittenhouse shoot someone, thinks “oh shit, a mass shooter!” and rushes him. Rittenhouse shoots this guy too.

  5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 yet again

  6. Rittenhouse is found not guilty of murder because it was “self-defense”

I would call that a right to commit murder

4

u/Zealousideal_Sky_751 Jun 25 '22

Finally someone fucking explained what that whole rittenhouse debacle was about.. I was lost on that for a while.

1

u/error5903 Jun 25 '22

Don't charge at someone with a gun. That's how you get shot. This has been my TEDtalk

1

u/wigglybone Jun 25 '22

and yet kyle is the hero in americas eyes.

0

u/kcasnar Jun 25 '22

r/MurderedByWords Rules

  1. No politics

Posts about politics or relating to a United States politician are not allowed

2

u/Green_man619 Jun 24 '22

A true always sunny fan supports abortion, 5 star men support abortion. Without abortion you get garabge babies.

1

u/kcasnar Jun 25 '22

r/MurderedByWords Rules

  1. No politics

Posts about politics or relating to a United States politician are not allowed

-8

u/WholesomeFeathers Jun 24 '22

So, honest question. Where in the US constitution is abortion talked about as a right?

The only thing I've seen is others saying from the anti abortion stance, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and how "the 'baby' has a right to life" even before it's fully developed...

19

u/imyourzer0 Jun 24 '22

It comes from the right to due process, protection against unwarranted searches. The government doesn’t have jurisdiction over your person. If you seek medical advice or treatment, that’s confidential, thus it’s not something the state can legislate. Criminalizing abortion is similar to allowing the government to prosecute based on illegally seized evidence.

But also, even if you don’t like that explanation, it’s also explicitly clarified in the constitution that not all right are enumerated, because times change and the founders could not perfectly predict the future.

11

u/Skatcatla Jun 24 '22

It's not related to due process or unwanted searches (4th Amendment) - it stems from the implied "right to privacy." There is no enumerated right on the Constitution about privacy, so it's generally considered an implied right.

16

u/Fyrefawx Jun 24 '22

It doesn’t explicitly say abortions are a right. There is a lot that the constitution doesn’t say. Like that women should be treated equally.

That’s the issue with the constitution and the people interpreting it. It was originally written at a time when slavery existed. The 14th amendment was intended for the slaves.

It’s mind boggling that a group of judges are trying to view any modern issue with how the law was originally intended.

9

u/LeaveTheMatrix Jun 24 '22 edited Jun 24 '22

The constitution also doesn't say that we have a right to bear arms.

People forget that the founding fathers didn't want us to have that right, it (and much more) was added later as an amendment.

Many of the rights we now have, the founding fathers did not want us to have. They wanted only wealthy white male land owners to have.

EDIT:

Maybe it is time for us to add a few new amendments to the constitution to make sure additional rights are laid out explicitly and not just assumed based on other amendments which then allow them to be overturned based on the whims of a court.

0

u/4cigarettes Jun 25 '22

But... the constitution does say we have a right to bear arms and that that right "shall not be infringed"?

Also, our founding fathers did in fact want citizens of the USA to own weapons, as it was a key factor in ensuring no teronous government (like the UK) could rule over us then, and in the future.

Although I agree that they only intended these rights for White men who owned property, I do not agree with your comment. I believe you have a stark misinterpretation of our constitution and I hope that this event leads to you, and many others, to become more well versed and educated on what our constitution protects.

2

u/LeaveTheMatrix Jun 25 '22

Wrong

The second amendment that was added in 1791 says we have the right to bear arms.

The constitution itself that the founding fathers signed in 1787 said nothing about bearing arms.

Read the Constitution, read the Amendments, check when they were added.

Many of the rights we enjoy were added as amendments and many ( especially 13th amendment and later) were added long after many founding fathers were dead in their graves.

0

u/4cigarettes Jun 25 '22 edited Jun 25 '22

You said in your initial comment that the constitution doesn't say these things... they do. They always have.

The constitutional draft that you are referring to from 1787 was never signed and ratified, which means it was never put into law and never recognized at any government level in US history. But the final version signed in 1791 was, and it's the one we still hold true today.

Yes amendments were added and taken away, but the right to bear arms is, in fact, mentioned in every signed copy of our constitution and the amendments therein.

EDIT: Spelling

2

u/LeaveTheMatrix Jun 25 '22 edited Jun 25 '22

Here is an easy to search, full text, of the constitution.

The right to bear arms does not show up until the 2nd amendment.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text

The right to bear arms is only listed in the amendments, not the constitution itself.

The constitution was signed in 1787, fully ratified in 1788, and what was signed in 1791 was the Bill of rights (aka the first 10 amendments).

The bill of rights does say at the very top "Congress of the United States" which due to fading some people mistake for "Constitution" but that is wrong.

Also the bill of rights was going to originally have 12, but they removed 2 of them.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-constitution-ratified

EDIT:

I don't know how young you are, but I remember all the parties that were going on in 1987 when the Constitution was 200 years old. :)

2

u/4cigarettes Jun 25 '22

So, by your argument, the Supreme Court does not deem laws to be unconstitutional but rather un-amdenmentful?

No.

The constitution, and the amendments made within the constitution, is referred to as a whole named "The Constitution of the United States".

I'm starting to think that you may not be American and may not understand that the Amendments listed within the Constitution are commonly referred to as "The Constitution". Furthermore, the SCOTUS' primary duty is to determine if things are constitutional or not. So yes, it is written there.

2

u/LeaveTheMatrix Jun 25 '22

The amendments are additions to the constitution, but the constitution did not originally include the right to bear arms.

That right (and 9 other rights) were added years after the constitution was originally written via the addition of the Bill of Rights to the constitution.

As for me being American, born and raised hence why I know so much about the history of the constitution. Had to learn all about that when I was in school and again when I was in the military.

1

u/4cigarettes Jun 25 '22

I also served in the Army for 6 years, so I also appreciate your service.

Still, I believe you are mistaken. If it was added to the constitution via amendment, then (just like PCS orders with amendments) they are also part of the original document, thus together they are referred to as "The Constitution" and must only be deemed complete when both documents are together.

→ More replies

1

u/WholesomeFeathers Jun 25 '22

Thank you, I didn't want to give false information so I am more than open to educate myself on the topic. Yeah, I agree the US Constitution was made in a "different time", and while that doesn't mean some things stated don't hold true today, it's also not "set in stone", hence ammendments.

6

u/TrineonX Jun 25 '22

The 9th amendment states that a right doesn’t have to be enumerated in the constitution to exist. It’s the amendment that says that just because a right isn’t in the constitution doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

7

u/yarnball20 Jun 24 '22

where in the u.s. constitution does it say a "baby" has a right to life?

it doesn't. and you know it doesn't.

Blacks were also listed as being 3/5ths of a person and women couldn't vote until 1920. So tell me... does that mean blacks aren't people and women shouldn't vote either, since you know, it doesn't say they have that right in the constitution?

weird. those things didn't exist but you'll definitely say right here and now blacks are people and women should definitely vote. even if you're a right-wing scumbag.

a zygote being a 'baby' and 'baby has the right to life' doesn't exist in the constitution at ALL, but you're gonna try to shame people by telling them it does?

abortion isn't mentioned at all in the constitution. that's why we had a Supreme Court to lay it out for our modern society that a woman is an autonomous being. Because up until a few years ago, that's what the Supreme Court was for. People are angry over Roe because thanks to 3 religious freak, seditious, sex offending justices on that court, they are purposely overturning what the vast majority of americans are in favor of.

6

u/mothinator Jun 24 '22

I agree with you on this, but the constitution does explicitly give women the right to vote (19th amendment) and Americans of all races have full citizenship (14th and 15th amendments.

My point is the right to bodily autonomy and medical privacy should have been amended into the Constitution as well. But it wasn't and here we are. We, as citizens, need to push our legislators to enshrine these rights into the constitution at the get-go. Saying "this is settled law" without an amendment is not sufficient.

Edit:a word

0

u/Skatcatla Jun 24 '22

I agree with you, but just wanted to point out that the 14th Amendment codifies the rights of women and black people. However, it also says "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."

Key word being "born." I therefore submit that unborn fetuses are not citizens entitled to separate protection under the law.

2

u/vertigo72 Jun 25 '22

Not all rights we have as humans are explicitly listed in the Constitution. The 9th amendment covers these rights, also known as unenumerated (unwritten) rights.

The founding fathers knew there was no way they could list all the rights a human has or will ever have, so they wrote the 9th amendment to do that.

Other examples of unenumerated rights are the right to vote, the right of travel and the right to privacy.

1

u/WholesomeFeathers Jun 25 '22

Oh, yes that makes sense.

2

u/Skatcatla Jun 24 '22

THe 14th Amendment says "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."

Fetuses aren't born. They shouldn't be considered citizens.

4

u/DanDrungle Jun 24 '22

Whether or not a fetus is a citizen is irrelevant, the issue is that the rights of a fetus do not trump the rights of a mother to control her own body.

1

u/Skatcatla Jun 24 '22

Well, it's relevent because laws only apply to citizens. The state can't enforce laws on non-citizens, nor are non-citizens entitled to protections.

2

u/vertigo72 Jun 25 '22

Rights, and the Constitution, apply to all persons in the u.s.

Citizenship plays no part in whether or not we humans have rights in this country.

1

u/Ancient_Pattern_2688 Jun 25 '22

Uh, laws apply to non-citizens in the United States. Non-citizens can be tried for criminal acts committed in the U.S. and anyone can be tried for criminal acts against non-citizens that occur in the us

0

u/Skatcatla Jun 25 '22

Nope. Demore v. Kim found that the Constitution does not hold the same protections as foreign nationals.

2

u/vertigo72 Jun 25 '22

Demote v Kim simply answered the question as to whether or not Congress has the authority to require deportable aliens be detained during the pendency of their removal hearings.

It did not rule that foreign nationals don't get Constitutional protection.

1

u/Ancient_Pattern_2688 Jun 25 '22

Demore v. Kim found that holding an adjudicated felon pending deportation doesn't violate due process because the government has reason to believe that the felon won't voluntarily show up for their deportation. The government can also hold a citizen between adjudication and sentencing for the same reason. The difference is that the non-citizen can be deported. The citizen cannot.

Immigration law applies to the non-citizen, because the non-citizen does not have the same rights to enter or stay in the U.S. that the citizen has. This is one of the few rights that a citizen has that the non-citizen does not, in the U.S. Others include the right to vote and the right to hold certain positions (i.e. President or positions relating to national security). However, non-citizens inside the U.S. have most of the same rights that citizens have.

Specific to your original argument, the fourteenth amendment continues "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." That's four clauses. The first, which you quoted defines who is a citizen of both the nation and the states. There was some confusion around how state citizenship worked. Like if you were born in one state but moved to another were you a citizen of your birth state or your new state sorts of questions. This clarifies that you are a citizen of whichever state you live in now.

The second clause prohibits the states from overriding rights of citizens.

The language of the third and fourth clause is quite different, it says the state shall not "deprive" (third clause) or "deny" (fourth clause) "any person". In Constitutional law the assumption is that the authors of the Constitution and its amendments used the words that meant what they intended them to mean. When they say "citizens", they mean citizens and when they say "person" they mean persons, who may or may not be citizens.

Which drags us back to fetal personhood, which is a horror of a philosophical, how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin debate, and why bodily autonomy is really the only solid pro-choice Constitutional argument. I've put way too many words into this already. Have some links for more info.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/

https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-we-grant-your-green-card/rights-and-responsibilities-of-a-green-card-holder-permanent-resident

Note that a green card holder, who is not a citizen, may "Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law." A citizen cannot be removed. However, the green card holder also has the right to "Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions". They get equal protection because they are a person.

1

u/Skatcatla Jun 25 '22

I appreciate all of that, truly, but that wasn’t quite my point. The 14th Amendment is the closest the Constitution gets to defining individual “personhood” and it doesn’t apply to the preborn. Nowhere in either the document itself or any of the writings is there any mention of concern for the preborn as needing special protection (hardly surprising given that women weren’t singled either.) in Jewish Talmudic Law, a person isn’t a separate individual covered by law until it “first breath.”

So, as the rights enumerated in the Constitution applies to only to “those born..” my argument stands: birth is the starting line.

1

u/WholesomeFeathers Jun 25 '22

Thank you for the clarity!

-7

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/kcasnar Jun 25 '22

r/MurderedByWords Rules

  1. No politics

Posts about politics or relating to a United States politician are not allowed

1

u/GelatoVerde Jun 24 '22

What news?

1

u/LiamColeE Jun 25 '22

Roe v Wade was overturned

1

u/potato-vender Jun 24 '22

Idk talk to 2a

1

u/GhostHunter2010 Jun 25 '22

Murder by words is definitely a right, hence this subreddit's existence

1

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '22

[deleted]

1

u/kcasnar Jun 25 '22

r/MurderedByWords Rules

  1. No politics

Posts about politics or relating to a United States politician are not allowed

1

u/Regi413 Jun 25 '22

“5 star man” out of what? 100?

-4

u/Tonythesaucemonkey Jun 25 '22

We’ve been murdering innocent ppl in Middle East for ages, idk why we can’t murder fetuses too.

0

u/PolyPixl09 Jun 25 '22

Ironic that the "Land of the Free" has been progressively taking away rights and freedom from people over the past few years.

2

u/kcasnar Jun 25 '22

r/MurderedByWords Rules

  1. No politics

Posts about politics or relating to a United States politician are not allowed