Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 50

Thread: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    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.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Not "stacy"....CASEY, from the OKSC:
    It's called a typo. You will see them throughout this forum, by lots of people. Try not to worry about them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    ie, the "personhood" law would remove the right for a woman to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages.
    Why is SCOTUS ignoring Roe Section 9a?

  3. #33
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  4. #34
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Roe v Wade: Section 9a

    Doesn't seem to me like they did ignore it.
    ...Exactly...
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    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 by Jerry; 05-03-12 at 05:32 AM.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    07-08-12 @ 03:33 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    271
    Blog Entries
    40

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    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.

  7. #37
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,619

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    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.

  8. #38
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-24-12 @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    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?

  9. #39
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
    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?

  10. #40
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •