• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

Willfully ignoring the rule of law, or unable to read a plain English document. Whichever you think more likely, those are the only two possibilities.
Obviously, you have studied the rulings and it shows with your well worded responses. That is the only possibility. [/snark]
 
Reason? The U.S. constitution says nothing about abortion. Any reasonable, literate person can see that. Therefore, these fools haven't a leg to stand on.

You're quite right, it doesn't. However in the Constitution the word "person" has ALWAYS refered to born people.
 
It hasn't been published yet.
Serious question: what is there to discuss, then? Since we know the facts aren't public knowledge, not 1 single person can logically form a rational opinion about this. All folks are going to do is vent about how they already feel about abortion.
 
Why is SCOTUS ignoring Roe Section 9a?

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158]

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. 55 This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F. Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N. Y. 2d 194, 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind., at ___, 285 N. E. 2d, at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [410 U.S. 113, 159] Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.

This conclusion, however, does not of itself fully answer the contentions raised by Texas, and we pass on to other considerations.

Roe v Wade: Section 9a

Doesn't seem to me like they did ignore it.
 
Roe v Wade: Section 9a

Doesn't seem to me like they did ignore it.

I've had the following Standard Issue Response years before you even joined this forum:
ROE v. WADE, Section 9a:
"A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses , [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment ."

...so please, stop with the arrogance. You aren't as smart as you think you are.


*****
Seems to me like they ignored it. I'm asking you why.
 
Last edited:
Anyone feel like this whole situation is really a back door for something else?

I mean, while you are all concentrated on the morality of terminating life thing I think what gets unnoticed is that ruling out this law can invite potentially worse moral problems in like cloning and scientific experimentation. If these things are not considered alive, scientitsts can legally grow and tamper with early stage human life as much as they want because it won't be considered human or living.
 
Jerry-
I understand you feel the 'ignore', however it appears this view isn't very widely shared. I suppose the question for you is does your continued insistence 9a is being ignored sound like the birthers holding up photocopies of the President's birth certificate insisting it is fake when most others disagree?

Makmugens-
Until the fetus has reached 'natural' viability it can be tampered with as you term it. Blobs of fertilized eggs for stem cell research, fetuses 'tampered' with to correct what will later be birth defects all seem like fair game. Cloned humans could be a problem for some but not if the experiments in developing the procedure stops before viability. AFTER that then the ethical problem of creating a 'failed' but now viable human becomes the issue.

My personal take is the Constitution is a living document because the 18th century agrarians couldn't foresee 21st century science. As the issues emerge they will be dealt with, perhaps like abortion, not quickly, neatly or in one rulings, but dealt with none the less.
 
Reason? The U.S. constitution says nothing about abortion. Any reasonable, literate person can see that. Therefore, these fools haven't a leg to stand on.

And which side that doesn't have a leg to stand on would that be?
 
And which side that doesn't have a leg to stand on would that be?

Well, like I said, any reasonable, literate person can see that. Can you read a plain English document, or can't you?
 
I've had the following Standard Issue Response years before you even joined this forum:


...so please, stop with the arrogance. You aren't as smart as you think you are.


*****
Seems to me like they ignored it. I'm asking you why.

No wonder the abortion arguement never gets anywhere. People just repeat everything ad nauseum without actually reading.

Read what I quoted. It tells you what is required for a newly fertilized egg to get the rights of a born person if you do a little thinking. And no state law or an amendment to an individual state amendment to their individual state constitution is going to do it. What is required is an amendment to the US Constitution. The word "person" in the US Constitution needs to be defined with in the US Constitution itself. Until it is you're SOL and any state law or amendment is going to fail.

As for me being arrogant...you might want to stop projecting as that post of mine was not arrogant.
 
Jerry-
I understand you feel the 'ignore'

Then you misunderstand. I'm asking for clarity on how section 9a did not come into play here.

If you ever think of anything informative to contribute on the matter, please feel free to share it.
 
What I find is that a when a person is "born", they are under the jurisdiction of US law. I don't see a "right to be born", rather a protection of rights once one is born.
Thank you for sharing what you found. What is written, however, is that a person has to be born in order to be a citizen. There is no requirement to be born in order to be a 'person', and no one is arguing that the unborn are citizens.
 
Thank you for sharing what you found. What is written, however, is that a person has to be born in order to be a citizen. There is no requirement to be born in order to be a 'person', and no one is arguing that the unborn are citizens.
Jer, the problem is one of language. In the discussion of 9a, Texas wanted to extend person status to a fetus via 14th, BUT, Texas could not cite any supporting cases for this position.


The rest of 9a:
The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [Footnote 51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [Footnote 52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.


The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [Footnote 53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

Roe was a compromise, and if anything cons should be happy with it since it extended protection to the unborn from 26 weeks on. This was a new, broadening definition of protective rights provided by the state, ie viability.
 
Last edited:
Jer, the problem is one of language. In the discussion of 9a, Texas wanted to extend person status to a fetus via 14th, BUT, Texas could not cite any supporting cases for this position.


The rest of 9a:


Roe was a compromise, and if anything cons should be happy with it since it extended protection to the unborn from 26 weeks on. This was a new, broadening definition of protective rights provided by the state, ie viability.

Is it that you're not aware that laws have been written in the lest 40 years since Roe?

Enter: Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 -- Laci and Conner's Law , for example. yes, pre-birth rights are granted to the the unborn. This and other laws like it are why Roe needs to be revisited.
 
Then you misunderstand. I'm asking for clarity on how section 9a did not come into play here.

If you ever think of anything informative to contribute on the matter, please feel free to share it.
Again, 9a did come into play, the court has recognized that a fetus is not a person as defined in the Constitution and the state has no protective interests prior to 26 weeks (pushed back to 23 weeks under Casey). The attempt by OK to define a zygote as a person is not supported by the Constitution as shown in Roe and in Casey.
 
Is it that you're not aware that laws have been written in the lest 40 years since Roe?

Enter: Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 -- Laci and Conner's Law , for example. yes, pre-birth rights are granted to the the unborn. This and other laws like it are why Roe needs to be revisited.
First off, Roe was revisited in Casey, it was revisited in this OKSC ruling and the law you cited I don't believe has been Constitutionally tested nor is it unlike previous laws giving parents the right to sue for damages.

Besides, I thought you were trying to get clarification on 9a, I don't know if that was accomplished and now you want to open another can of worms. Slow down man, one step at a time, ok?
 
Last edited:
Again, 9a did come into play, the court has recognized that a fetus is not a person as defined in the Constitution and the state has no protective interests prior to 26 weeks (pushed back to 23 weeks under Casey).

No, it wasn't. It was "pushed back" to the point of medical viability, which the pluarlity noted at the time might be 22 or 23 weeks.
 
No, it wasn't. It was "pushed back" to the point of medical viability, which the pluarlity noted at the time might be 22 or 23 weeks.
Uh....I did not say it wasn't due to viability, the state interest date is viability, I am not confused on that point at all.

What's next.....I'm incorrect because I did not mention the Justices who ruled?

Get a life.
 
Uh....I did not say it wasn't due to viability, the state interest date is viability, I am not confused on that point at all.

What's next.....I'm incorrect because I did not mention the Justices who ruled?

Uh, no, you're incorrect because you said they ruled the state interest begins at 23 weeks. That isn't what they ruled.

Now, I know I was clear on that, so why didn't you follow me?
 
Uh, no, you're incorrect because you said they ruled the state interest begins at 23 weeks. That isn't what they ruled.

Now, I know I was clear on that, so why didn't you follow me?
It is so sad that you decide to get into nit-picking, but I'll play.

Which is comes first, state interest, or viability? State interest, of course. When does state interest begin? At viability. The point of viability may change, but the first principal applied, is state interest. State interest and viability are interlinked, but viability on its own is meaningless without state interest.

And to clarify, I did not say it was pushed back BECAUSE of state interest, I said that the date was pushed back IN Casey.


Again, find something better to do than to quibble with me about your imagined fault finding.
 
Back
Top Bottom