• 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!

What aspect of a person does the Constitution protect?

The United States Constitution protects

  • Total voters
    20
Chuz Life

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The relevant text of the Constitution (to this question) is this;

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

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. 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.

Does the Constitution apply to and protect the "biological" aspect of a human individual (person) or the metaphysical aspect (souls, personality, etc.)?

If you are one who believes in the separation of church and state, answer carefully.
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
The relevant text of the Constitution (to this question) is this;

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

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. 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.

Does the Constitution apply to and protect the "biological" aspect of a human individual (person) or the metaphysical aspect (souls, personality, etc.)?

If you are one who believes in the separation of church and state, answer carefully.
Click to expand...

"born or naturalized"

So I guess the unborn counteth not. I just solved the abortion debate!!
 
There is no biological definition for being a person. Person-hood is a social construct in which humans decide the emotional importance of a certain creature. Dogs for example, are often elevated to the status of person-hood by their owners. However, it has nothing to do with the biological status of the dog, but the emotional connection a person feels for it.
 
rathi said:
There is no biological definition for being a person. Person-hood is a social construct in which humans decide the emotional importance of a certain creature. Dogs for example, are often elevated to the status of person-hood by their owners. However, it has nothing to do with the biological status of the dog, but the emotional connection a person feels for it.
Click to expand...

Correction, I found one.
Person - definition from Biology-Online.org

8. (Science: biology) A shoot or bud of a plant; a polyp or zooid of the compound hydrozoa anthozoa, etc.; also, an individual, in the narrowest sense, among the higher animals
Click to expand...
 
EpicDude86 said:
"born or naturalized"

So I guess the unborn counteth not. I just solved the abortion debate!!
Click to expand...

Dude,... surely you realize that the phrase "born or naturalized" is used to determine who is and who is not a "citizen."

A person is a person even if they are not a "citizen" of the United States.

If you would read it more closely, you will see that the 14th isn't defining personhood,... it is defining "citizens." And it secures the rights of all "persons" be they "citizens" or not.

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. 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.

Also,.. consider the word "born" has multiple meanings,... Including "brought into existence" or "created."

You voted in my other poll "Does a new person's life "biologically" begin at conception" in the affirmative.

You acknowledge that they exist as a human organism and that their life was "created by" ... "brought into existence by" their conception.

So let me ask you,.... How can it not be said that a "person" is just as "born" at the moment of their conception,.. as they are a the removal from their mother womb?

If not more so.

:yt
 
Chuz Life said:
Dude,... surely you realize that the phrase "born or naturalized" is used to determine who is and who is not a "citizen."

A person is a person even if they are not a "citizen" of the United States.

If you would read it more closely, you will see that the 14th isn't defining personhood,... it is defining "citizens." And it secures the rights of all "persons" be they "citizens" or not.

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. 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.

Also,.. consider the word "born" has multiple meanings,... Including "brought into existence" or "created."

You voted in my other poll "Does a new person's life "biologically" begin at conception" in the affirmative.

You acknowledge that they exist as a human organism and that their life was "created by" ... "brought into existence by" their conception.

So let me ask you,.... How can it not be said that a "person" is just as "born" at the moment of their conception,.. as they are a the removal from their mother womb?

If not more so.

:yt
Click to expand...

For the answer to that you'll have to sift through the piles upon piles of rhetoric in the thread about defining just what a 'person' is. It's really a matter of opinion when "personhood" begins because even by definition "person" can be applied to the unborn, but more realistically it is applied to the post born. Why? Well, that's just the opinion(s) of many.
 
The constitution protects people who've been born and we can see. Not goo in petri dishes.
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
Dude,... surely you realize that the phrase "born or naturalized" is used to determine who is and who is not a "citizen."

A person is a person even if they are not a "citizen" of the United States.

If you would read it more closely, you will see that the 14th isn't defining personhood,... it is defining "citizens." And it secures the rights of all "persons" be they "citizens" or not.

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. 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.

Also,.. consider the word "born" has multiple meanings,... Including "brought into existence" or "created."

You voted in my other poll "Does a new person's life "biologically" begin at conception" in the affirmative.

You acknowledge that they exist as a human organism and that their life was "created by" ... "brought into existence by" their conception.

So let me ask you,.... How can it not be said that a "person" is just as "born" at the moment of their conception,.. as they are a the removal from their mother womb?

If not more so.

:yt
Click to expand...

One problem here. When they are talking about being "born or naturalized" here they are talking about actually being born..as in the day that they are birthed, they day they come out of the woman. As is evidenced by the fact that if an illegal gets pregnant in Mexico and then comes to the US and has that child on US soil that child is considered a US citizen. Even if she has that baby the very same day that she arrives in the US.
 
EpicDude86 said:
For the answer to that you'll have to sift through the piles upon piles of rhetoric in the thread about defining just what a 'person' is. It's really a matter of opinion when "personhood" begins because even by definition "person" can be applied to the unborn, but more realistically it is applied to the post born. Why? Well, that's just the opinion(s) of many.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you more bluntly, Dude,.. as you are known to call it like you see it, regardless of how it reflects onto yourself.

When is a new person actually "created" or "brought into existence?"

Conception? Or live birth?
 
It protects the biological person. Since embryos/fetuses are not homosapiens by scientific definition, the discussion is moot.
 
Kal'Stang said:
One problem here. When they are talking about being "born or naturalized" here they are talking about actually being born..as in the day that they are birthed, they day they come out of the woman. As is evidenced by the fact that if an illegal gets pregnant in Mexico and then comes to the US and has that child on US soil that child is considered a US citizen. Even if she has that baby the very same day that she arrives in the US.
Click to expand...

That is how the writers of the amendment define what a "citizen" is.

Not what a "person" is.

Read what the amendment says.... You do not have to be a "citizen" (person born or naturalized) to have a right to your life, liberty, due process and equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment.

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. 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.

Is it still going over your heads?



 
Chuz Life said:
Let me ask you more bluntly, Dude,.. as you are known to call it like you see it, regardless of how it reflects onto yourself.

When is a new person actually "created" or "brought into existence?"

Conception? Or live birth?
Click to expand...

A new person? Well, again, depends on what you would define as a person. Some would say that the minute that egg fertilizes you have a person, some would say that certain changes within the womb that begin to define you as a human (Consciousness, Nervous System, etc.), and still more would say until you breach your uteral oven and take that first breath on your own, you are not a person. Me personally? I don't care enough to go one way or another, though I'd probably swing more towards actual birth being the beginning. Why you ask? Well I'll tell you why. Because 1. Semantics are on my side here. Born is Born is Born. and 2. Most people can associate with 'born' being the actual act of being born forth from your mother's loins. Now, when are they created? well, the PROCESS starts with successful fertilization. The process isn't finished until, well, until it's finished and it's time to pull the bun from the oven.

And on the topic of Processes. What instances do we take something that is IN the process of being constructed and qualify it as the end product? What instances do we look at something being put together and not qualify it as the end product, simply because it isn't yet finished?
 
Chuz Life said:
That is how the writers of the amendment define what a "citizen" is.

Not what a "person" is.

Read what the amendment says.... You do not have to be a "citizen" (person born or naturalized) to have a right to your life, liberty, due process and equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment.

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. 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.

Is it still going over your heads?



Click to expand...

Why do you not bold the word above in size 14....
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
That is how the writers of the amendment define what a "citizen" is.

Not what a "person" is.

Read what the amendment says.... You do not have to be a "citizen" (person born or naturalized) to have a right to your life, liberty, due process and equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment.

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. 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.

Is it still going over your heads?



Click to expand...
So what? It's not like posting your "spiritual" interpretation of the constitution will change scientific consensus. Obviously said piece of paper doesn't "protect" embryos/fetuses or else abortion would not be legal. ;)
 
Chuz Life said:
That is how the writers of the amendment define what a "citizen" is.

Not what a "person" is.

Read what the amendment says.... You do not have to be a "citizen" (person born or naturalized) to have a right to your life, liberty, due process and equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment.

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. 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.

Is it still going over your heads?



Click to expand...


And you have to either be a Citizen of this Nation, or a person visiting (Some would say visiting legally, others would say just feet on the soil is all you need) the nation to be afforded the protections of the Constitution.
 
Chuz Life said:
Let me ask you more bluntly, Dude,.. as you are known to call it like you see it, regardless of how it reflects onto yourself.

When is a new person actually "created" or "brought into existence?"

Conception? Or live birth?
Click to expand...
Live birth. Scientific consensus has confirmed that (and as sperm is alive, who's to say it shouldn't begin before conception if you're going to take that route?)
 
EpicDude86 said:
A new person? Well, again, depends on what you would define as a person. Some would say that the minute that egg fertilizes you have a person, some would say that certain changes within the womb that begin to define you as a human (Consciousness, Nervous System, etc.), and still more would say until you breach your uteral oven and take that first breath on your own, you are not a person. Me personally? I don't care enough to go one way or another, though I'd probably swing more towards actual birth being the beginning. Why you ask? Well I'll tell you why. Because 1. Semantics are on my side here. Born is Born is Born. and 2. Most people can associate with 'born' being the actual act of being born forth from your mother's loins. Now, when are they created? well, the PROCESS starts with successful fertilization. The process isn't finished until, well, until it's finished and it's time to pull the bun from the oven.

And on the topic of Processes. What instances do we take something that is IN the process of being constructed and qualify it as the end product? What instances do we look at something being put together and not qualify it as the end product, simply because it isn't yet finished?
Click to expand...

Dude,.. the "process" required to create a child is called "sexual intercourse." If it is successfull, at the end of the process you have a new child,... Young, dependant and easily deniable... But it's still a new organism that didn't exist before. It was "created," "brought into existence," "born" at the moment of their conception.
 
Chuz Life said:
Dude,.. the "process" required to create a child is called "sexual intercourse." If it is successfull, at the end of the process you have a new child,... Young, dependant and easily deniable... But it's still a new organism that didn't exist before. It was "created," "brought into existence," "born" at the moment of their conception.
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing 9 months of the process. :lol:

"Conceived" and "Born" are two similar terms, but not the same when referencing baby making as you are here.
 
Hatuey said:
Why do you not bold the word above in size 14....
Click to expand...

A person is "born" at the moment of their conception.

That's when they are actually "created" or "brought into existence."

"Birth" delivering a baby from the mother's womb,...is just a change of address for the child who already has been living for about 9 months.
 
EpicDude86 said:
You seem to be missing 9 months of the process. :lol:

"Conceived" and "Born" are two similar terms, but not the same when referencing baby making as you are here.
Click to expand...
He's still ignoring the proven scientific fact that sperm is biologically alive (likely to avoid having to admit to mass murder every time he enjoys the occasional masturbation).

Why do pro-lifers try to deny sperm it's Constitutionally-protected personhood? Hypocrite much?? ;)
 
Chuz Life said:
A person is "born" at the moment of their conception.

That's when they are actually "created" or "brought into existence."
Click to expand...
That is scientifically incorrect. "Person" is not a scientific term (homosapien is the correct one), and biological life begins before conception (sperm is alive).

Chuz Life said:
"Birth" delivering a baby from the mother's womb,...is just a change of address for the child who already has been living for about 9 months.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. It has been scientifically proven that a fetus/embryo is not a child. Calling a fetus/embryo a child is just a change of address from the scientifically accurate definition (just as PETA calls killing animals "murder").

Just repeating to yourself "it's a person! It's a person!" like a mantra, does not change science (nor does it when a PETArd chants "Meat is murder".) You have no more credibility than they do since you willingly choose to distort science in order to push your religious agenda.
 
Toothpicvic said:
That is scientifically incorrect. "Person" is not a scientific term (homosapien is the correct one), and biological life begins before conception (sperm is alive).


No it isn't. It has been scientifically proven that a fetus/embryo is not a child. Calling a fetus/embryo a child is just a change of address from the scientifically accurate definition (just as PETA calls killing animals "murder").

Just repeating to yourself "it's a person! It's a person!" like a mantra, does not change science (nor does it when a PETArd chants "Meat is murder".) You have no more credibility than they do since you willingly choose to distort science in order to push your religious agenda.
Click to expand...

Does sperm really qualify as alive? I thought that sperm and eggs didn't qualify because they are not an organism in their own right and cannot reproduce themselves, they are a product of another organ.
 
EpicDude86 said:
You seem to be missing 9 months of the process. :lol:

"Conceived" and "Born" are two similar terms, but not the same when referencing baby making as you are here.
Click to expand...

Pregnancy is not a "process" for making babies,... sex is.

Pregnancy (gestation) is the time it takes for the new child to grow towards the necessary point required to breech your ability to deny them their personhood.
 
Chuz Life said:
Pregnancy is not a "process" for making babies,... sex is.

Pregnancy (gestation) is the time it takes for the new child to grow towards the necessary point required to breech your ability to deny them their personhood.
Click to expand...

Sex does not a baby make. Sex makes a fertilized egg. Which then undergoes a process, with noticeable stages, before it becomes a fully functioning, or shall I say independently functioning, human being.
 
Chuz Life said:
Pregnancy is not a "process" for making babies,... sex is.
Click to expand...
That is scientifically incorrect. Pregnancy is a biological process for making babies.

Chuz Life said:
Pregnancy (gestation) is the time it takes for the new child to grow towards the necessary point required to breech your ability to deny them their personhood.
Click to expand...
That is scientifically incorrect, as fetuses/embros are not homosapiens by scientific definition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom