Persons, personhood and their relevance. - Page 5

prometeus · 07-14-08, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethereal

Of course, take as much time as you need.

Sorry for the delay in the response, but I still did not have the chance to form a proper reply. A whole bunch of events and travel took upi a lot of my time lately. Also I feel that pursuing the discussion in this thread would be out of topic. I will start a new one "The right to life" and we'll continue there. Hope this is acceptable to you.

But as long as we are in this thread, what do you think about the OP?

Jerry · 07-14-08, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prometeus

You can begin anywhere you wish, when you get to a point that is relevant to the issue, let us know.

I did, and you missed it. Oh well.

prometeus · 07-14-08, 06:24 PM

No, it just looked that way to you, but in reality you did not get there. Keep trying though, you may make it given enough time...

Jerry · 07-14-08, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prometeus

No, it just looked that way to you, but in reality you did not get there. Keep trying though, you may make it given enough time...

What can I say, the unborn do indeed have some substanchial meashure of basic human rights legaly afforded born non-citizen people, but you appear to be of the opinion that that fact is irrelivent to the thread, and so I don't understand your complaint.

prometeus · 07-16-08, 11:41 AM

How would yo feel if "substantial measure" of your rights applied only in cases of violence and crime? That aspect of life / rights for the average person is nil, therefore irrelevant to this topic.

Jerry · 07-16-08, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prometeus

How would yo feel if "substantial measure" of your rights applied only in cases of violence and crime?

What I, you, or anyone else 'feel' about anything is totaly irrelivent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by prometeus

That aspect of life / rights for the average person is nil, therefore irrelevant to this topic.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, please restate for my clerity.

Ethereal · 07-17-08, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Sorry for the delay in the response, but I still did not have the chance to form a proper reply. A whole bunch of events and travel took upi a lot of my time lately. Also I feel that pursuing the discussion in this thread would be out of topic. I will start a new one "The right to life" and we'll continue there. Hope this is acceptable to you.

I suppose. I was merely adressing a point which was made by Lachaen, also the rationale of your premise is a matter of Constitutional law, so I don't see our discussion as being tangential or ancillary, but if you wish to discuss it elsewhere I see no reason to deny you this courtesy.

Quote:

But as long as we are in this thread, what do you think about the OP?

One of the important aspects of the abortion debate is whether the fetus is accorded the same rights as born people, or what the supporters of legal abortion call persons. Self serving definitions can and often are made by either side, but what I feel is more important is how society views or accepts / recognizes such definitions.

The XIV Amendment to the US Constitution, Section 2, states: "Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State..."
Those numbers come from the census and it is undisputable that the census does not count fetuses, nor does it even inquire about the possible state of pregnancy of women.
As such it is clear that the Constitution does NOT recognize a fetus as a person. If there is no recognition, then there can be no rights assigned and while objections on individual moral grounds can be held, no legal reasoning can be sustained for a change in the status of the legality of abortions.

I wasn't particularly interested in the OP itself as I have discussed this issue ad nasuem through my stay at DP, but if I were to give you a quick thesis it would be this - as it currently stands your interpretation of the legal circumstances surrounding abortion are correct, however, legality does not automatically denote factuality or morality; as such the current definition of "person" under the Constitution, although legally enforcable, may, nonetheless, be factually incorrect. Pursuant to this determination it would be appropriate to alter or amend the Constitution in a way that compels it to recognize the de facto definition of personhood instead of the de jure definition.

prometeus · 07-17-08, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethereal

I wasn't particularly interested in the OP itself as I have discussed this issue ad nasuem through my stay at DP, but if I were to give you a quick thesis it would be this - as it currently stands your interpretation of the legal circumstances surrounding abortion are correct, however, legality does not automatically denote factuality or morality; as such the current definition of "person" under the Constitution, although legally enforcable, may, nonetheless, be factually incorrect. Pursuant to this determination it would be appropriate to alter or amend the Constitution in a way that compels it to recognize the de facto definition of personhood instead of the de jure definition.

I think you put that very well in light of what the facts are currently and what you wish them to be.
Do you realize how very difficult it is to amend the Constitution?
How about talking about the implications, beyond the obvious, the legality of abortions?

prometeus · 07-17-08, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry

What I, you, or anyone else 'feel' about anything is totaly irrelivent.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, please restate for my clerity.

You brought up the unborn victims of violence act. I am saying that, that is irrelevant to the topic, because it only applies to a very narrow aspect of life, violence to be precise and most people's rights encompass a far broader spectrum than violence. Giving fetuses limited protection in case of violence, violence that is primarily not even directed at the fetus is far from recognition.

Ethereal · 07-18-08, 12:20 AM

Quote:

I think you put that very well in light of what the facts are currently and what you wish them to be.
Do you realize how very difficult it is to amend the Constitution?

Yes, I'm well aware of the process. That is, however, irrelevant as this is a matter of principle and not practicality.

Quote:

How about talking about the implications, beyond the obvious, the legality of abortions?

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean the illegality of abortions?