• 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!

Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:869]

I never said "personhood" is in the ConstitutionI said "being born" was... and your argument is a massive failure that you can't even make semi-coherent.
Why do you ignore or disregard the context of Section 1 of the 14th amendment? The context of the first part of Section I is all about citizenship. You can be a citizen by birth, i.e. being born into the land or, for foreigners, they can be naturalized into citizenship. Therefore, it doesn't mean that you have to be born in order to become a person. Likewise, it doesn't mean you're not a person until you're naturalized as a citizen, does it?
 
There's nothing in the Constitution about the internet, either, but over the past 200+ years, we've kinda figured out that the amendments apply to certain situations that didn't exist back then.
Internet is just a means of communication like the press, telephone and radio. The Constitution certainly has something to say about communication. It's called the First Amendment. I don't see there's any federal or state laws that outlaw internet, do you?
 
Quickening was thought in Biblical times to be when the soul entered into the unborn. Some other pro choice religions feel ensoulment happens at birth.

As for quickening and common law abortion was legal before quickening and just a misdemeanor later in pregnancy.

Roe v Wade did search the Constitution

From Part IX Roe v Wade
The Bible does not come up with "ensoulment" nonsense let alone its alleged occurrence at birth. I'm not going to beat around the bushes on your phantom creation to derail the topic of this thread. The only thing I'll comment about the Bible is that God will require of you for your shedding of innocent blood. So, stay on topic please.


Just because there is a short coming in the common law of the early 1800s due to lack of scientific knowledge, doesn't mean we should do even worst and barbaric than they did by allowing slaughter of innocent infant in the womb despite our modern knowledge of Human Embryology.


Yeah, the Roe v Wade did search. Search they did to contort the things they found to usurp the Constitution and State right.


First, the reference to the word "person" as found in the 14th amendment was merely a common substitute word for the word "human being". You can use and substitute either term and the meaning remains exactly the same. Therefore, like pronouns and predicate norminative, the substitutes do not change the value or meaning of the primary word or subject. That's the way English language works. Nothing mythical here.


Second, this part of the amendment is about citizenship. It's not about abortion or the philosophical discourse of when prenatal life begins to become a person. It's not even a document about human embryology or human development. So, tell me, why did Blackmun expect to find anything about prenatal life? Obviously, what Blackmun did was he completely removed the actual context of the Section I of the 14th amendment pertaining to citizenship and substituted it with a context about personhood or lack thereof of prenatal life for the purpose of fulfilling his abortion agenda. He's trying to force something that is not there into the Constitution in order to carve out something out of thin air for his political agenda. This is a logical fallacy known as fallacy of vicious abstraction and it's so apparent for anyone who has eyes to see.


And by this innuendo of his, he then concludes that "that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." By this he committed another logical fallacy called "Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence"


But, Blackmun either didn't search hard enough or he just purposely ignore the writing of James Wilson, who was the framer of the US Constitution. In his writing he did talk about prenatal life in the context of abortion. He equates the term "Life", which is found in the DOI and the Constitution, to infant in the womb. When the 5th and the 14th amendment prohibit the govt from depriving life, it includes the life of the infant in the womb as the framer, James Wilson, described when he talked about protecting it from the completely destruction in abortion. yes, the context here is actually about abortion unlike Blackmun's twisting and contortion of the Constitution beyond recognition.
 
Last edited:
YES; they didn't know about living cells, so there was no way of knowing if it was actually alive before it started moving. Did you know that some time after macroscopic life-forms like humans were found to be comprised of cells, descending from a single cell, that's when the Church decided it was wrong, that human ensoulment didn't begin at quickening?....
It doesn't matter what the Church decide if it is not what the Bible says. I don't think the Church nor you can find anything in the Bible with regards to the so-called "ensoulment" or "quickening" in relation to "ensoulment".

But this thread is not about the Bible. So, let's just not stray from the topic, which is the Constitution, particularly the 5th and 14th amendment.

Fetal kicking is Nature's answer to a Question asked by NASA: How do you strengthen bones in a reduced-gravity environment? (Answer: exercise)
What does NASA got to do with this abortion debate? Prometus was trying to argue that state proabortion law prior to Roe v Wade was enacted to protect the pregnant women and not the fetus. So, why would the State determine the stage of quickening if pregnant women, whom the State allegedly wants to protect, weren't the ones doing the quickening?

"Common law" existed for a reason, which was mostly the simple pragmatic fact that it allowed a society to successfully survive over the long term. Now think about two important facts: (1) about 50% of all newborn children died by the age of 3 in that era, and (2) every government has a vested interest in ensuring future taxpayers exist. NO aspect of "rights" need be involved, in opposing abortion in those days!
Nobody here is arguing about the merit of the common law except you. And you're making up stuffs just so you rant on about something that causes me to scratch my head ... and say, "What the heck?"

Nevertheless, nothing of what you quoted about what he wrote need be taken as assigning right-to-life to the unborn. It could be done as a rationale to hide the pragmatic things mentioned above --humans are often rationalizing entities, not rational entities. Remember, the Constitution-plus-Amendments uses the word "person" throughout, and doesn't use the word "human" even once.
Why not? He was a framer of the US Constitution and he called the prenatal life as "life" in the womb. specifically, as an infant stirring in the womb.

So, the framer clearly equates Life = infant stirring in the womb.

Therefore, the framer tells us that a prenatal life is an infant who deserves to be protected not only from immediate destruction but from every degree of actual violent. Here's what he says:

By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger."

The term "person" is just another pronomimal word for a human being just like the word "one" or "anyone" refers to a human being. Likewise for the pronouns "he" and "she". So, no matter how much twisting and contorting you people try to impose upon us, it's not going to fly.

You haven't seen anything yet, so here:
The Constitution mandates a Census of all persons (except Indians not taxed), every ten years. While modified a bit by the 14th Amendment, ALL persons must be counted (except Indians not taxed).....
I've seen just about every kind of twisting and contorting coming out from your proabortion camp. So, what else is new from you that you claim I haven't yet seen?

Yeah, the Census. As if it really proves anything. Nothing new I haven't seen either. Census was taken for a purpose. In this case for tax purpose, as you said. The Indians are not taxed so they are not counted. Doesn't prove they aren't human beings either. The unborn human beings are in the womb with the mothers. They don't work and thus have no income. So, they aren't taxed either. Doesn't mean they aren't human beings. So, you're attempting to misrepresent something for a purpose other than it is intended for. The term person means a human being, that's all. Nothing metaphysically special that you tried so hard to make it out to be without an iota of scientific evidence.
 
Last edited:
The Bible does not come up with "ensoulment" nonsense let alone its alleged occurrence at birth. I'm not going to beat around the bushes on your phantom creation to derail the topic of this thread. The only thing I'll comment about the Bible is that God will require of you for your shedding of innocent blood. So, stay on topic please.


Just because there is a short coming in the common law of the early 1800s due to lack of scientific knowledge, doesn't mean we should do even worst and barbaric than they did by allowing slaughter of innocent infant in the womb despite our modern knowledge of Human Embryology.


Yeah, the Roe v Wade did search. Search they did to contort the things they found to usurp the Constitution and State right.


First, the reference to the word "person" as found in the 14th amendment was merely a common substitute word for the word "human being". You can use and substitute either term and the meaning remains exactly the same. Therefore, like pronouns and predicate norminative, the substitutes do not change the value or meaning of the primary word or subject. That's the way English language works. Nothing mythical here.


Second, this part of the amendment is about citizenship. It's not about abortion or the philosophical discourse of when prenatal life begins to become a person. It's not even a document about human embryology or human development. So, tell me, why did Blackmun expect to find anything about prnatal life? Obviously, what Blakmun did was he completely removed the actual ccontext of the Section I of the 14th amendment pertaining to citizenship and substituted it with a context about personhood or lack thereof of prenatal life for the purpose of fulfilling his abortion agenda. He's trying to force something that is not there into the Constitution in order to carve out something out of thin air for his political agenda. This is a logical fallacy known as fallacy of vicious abstraction and it's so apparent for anyone who has eyes to see.


And by this innuendo of his, he then concludes that "that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." By this he committed another logical fallacy called "Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence"


But, Blackmun either didn't search hard enough or he just purposely ignore the writing of James Wilson, who was the framer of the US Constitution. In his writing he did talk about prenatal life in the context of abortion. He equates the term "Life", which is found in the DOI and the Constitution, to infant in the womb. When the 5th and the 14th amendment prohibit the govern from depriving life, it includes the life of the infant in the womb as the framer, James Wilson, described when he talked about protecting it from the completely destruction in abortion. yes, the context here is actually about abortion unlike Blackmun's twisting and contortion of the Constitution beyond recognition.

History says that Wilson was a very smart man, but he was more known for his expertise in banking law. Which documents did Wilson talk about prenatal life in context to abortion? I'd love to read over them.
 
Oh, you mean such events as the perfectly Natural death rate of about 2/3 of all unborn humans, between conception and a full-term birth (which might actually be a still-birth)? ....
I can never understand the logic displays in this kind of proabortion argument which comes up very often in abortion debate. It's so ludicrous that one can't know whether to laugh or to cry. People died all the time from all kinds of causes. Does that mean that murder is legal by reason of that? No, of course. It's so absurd to even come up with this kind of logic.

The DOI set the context of rights and the Constitution binds the governing body to protect the rights of the people. The Constitution starts out by setting the fundamental frame work and the refinement unfolds as needed in the course of time. That's what the amendment is for, which is set up by the Constitution in Article V.

Now you are taking a piece of the DOI out of context. Human reproduction has nothing to do with the human events that that document is all about. There is absolutely nothing in either the DOI or the Constitution indicating that human reproduction is a required event.
Nope it's you and your proabortion folks who twist the DOI and the Constitution out of context. Human reproduction that gives rise to another human being is a human event. In terms of "Life" what else is if this is not?

FALSE. You are now talking about something of which the dictionary is an unreliable source, for proving things....
Where did I quote the dictionary? In the past I quote from the Science of Human Embryology and provide citations for its sources. But, you people don't even care about science. You people only care about proabortion invention and innuendo.

Yep, a human being is simply a person and a person is simply a human being until the law also includes it to mean a corporation. So, nothing special about the word "person". At least not to the level of justifying the killing of innocent human being by the lack of its recognition thereof. The concept of "personhood" is simply a phantom invention of proabortion movement to fool the gullible during the time of Roe v Wade, nothing more. Your self-serving imagination of so-called "in-common things" is just that, your imagination. Nothing of substance, of course. But, what is important is that unborn human beings are human beings. Killing human beings without just cause is murder, period.

Nice try, but you are ignoring the fact that about 2/3 of all unborn humans naturally die before or at birth, so where is their "right to life"? Also, here:
Another inane repetitious absurdity. Yeah, so where is the "right to life" of all these born children and adults who died of natural causes? Just because they died of natural causes doesn't mean that they have none to begin with. And it also doesn't mean others lose their right to life as a result of those who expired due to natural causes. Such silly argument!

Only "men" are specified, not humans in general. Remember that a Constitutional Amendment was needed to grant women the right to vote. WE might take the word "men" to refer generically to all of mankind, but those who wrote both the DOI and the Constitution were doing no such thing! So that's another out-of-context thing you have done.
You have no inkling of the history of English language, do you? The term "men", used in the 18th century, is a generic term for "human beings" that includes both gender. Before the word "person" was in exclusive usage following its loan from the ancient Greek via Latin, "men" or the singular "man"was just a substitute for the word "human beings" or "human being", as in the KIV Bible, Matthew 4:4, that says: "Man shall not live on bread alone". You can substitute the word "Man" for "A human being" or "A person", or "One" etc, and it means just the same.

You are the one trying to twist the language of the DOI out of context. The Constitution did not define who is eligible to vote. It's left up to the State. The State didn't do it right, so the need for the amendment. That does not mean that the term "men" used in the DOI and the Constitution refers only to men and not women. If this is so, then women will not have right to life and due process, etc ... let alone right to privacy (which would only apply to men if your interpretation is true) since to date there is never amendment to effect any change.
 
Because it does not reconize any right to life. If it did, say like the right to free speech or to bear arms it would, even if vaguely, attempt to define it. Moreover fetuses are not recognized and thus counted in the Census or allowed as dependents on tax returns, but children are.
Wrong.

DOI: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness;"

5th amendment: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

14th amendment: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

James Wilson, framer of US Constitution: "With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.26 By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger."

More evidence for my position in defense of prenatal life than you can ever have. You can't prove from the founding documents for your empty assertion that "fetuses are not recognized". Where does say in the DOI or the Constitution that "fetuses are not recognized" or that "fetuses aren't persons"? None exist of course. All you have is your persistent empty and self-serving arbitrary declaration carved out of thin air.

Census has nothing to do with your humanity or lack thereof.

Those conducted by born people.
This is yet another of your self-serving arbitrary invention not found anywhere in the Constitution or in any founding document. In fact, James Wilson, one of the framers of the US Constitution proves you wrong.
 
Last edited:
I assure you I am not concerned in the least. I was just pointing out how sorely lacking they are.

The proof is the inane assertion you made.

Yet it IS an accepted fact.

Nor is there an empowerment of government to get involved in it or to outlaw it. As such that which is not forbidden IS a right, much the same way your ability to travel freely in this nation.

More ignorant talking points reinforcing your lack of knowledge and understanding of rights and the Constitution.

So what? Do you know why?

What a great thing it is that it is not up to you.

Here is a clue for you. Drugs are bad for society, abortions not so much.

In that case you are simply engaging in personal attack instead of debating the point. Blanket dismissal of my points as "lacking" or "inane" without proving it with cogent rebuttal and evidence is not a reasonable debate in any way shape or form.

What is not forbidden by the Constitution is not a carte blanche to do whatever you want. Otherwise, criminal operations not delineated in the Constitution, such as illegal drug operation, child sexual abuse and pornography, etc...etc, would be legitimize by your absurd assertion that there's no empowerment of the govt to get involved in them or outlaw them.

Yes, drugs are bad for society, especially to those who freely choose to engage in it. But, abortion are bad for those innocent human lives who do not choose to be exterminated.
 
Last edited:
Why do you ignore or disregard the context of Section 1 of the 14th amendment? The context of the first part of Section I is all about citizenship. You can be a citizen by birth, i.e. being born into the land or, for foreigners, they can be naturalized into citizenship. Therefore, it doesn't mean that you have to be born in order to become a person. Likewise, it doesn't mean you're not a person until you're naturalized as a citizen, does it?

This whole argument is a US based legal argument so the "naturalized" part is irrelevant as we don't care about the status of the unborn outside America. They move her born and they can be American citizens. They are born here and they are persons.
 
This whole argument is a US based legal argument so the "naturalized" part is irrelevant as we don't care about the status of the unborn outside America. They move her born and they can be American citizens. They are born here and they are persons.
What a spurious argument. Are you purposely trying to muddle what the actual debate point is all about? Yeah, born here you are persons. Not born here you are not persons. Make a lot of sense.:doh
 
Last edited:
History says that Wilson was a very smart man, but he was more known for his expertise in banking law. Which documents did Wilson talk about prenatal life in context to abortion? I'd love to read over them.
I put the link up in my previous post. Go look it up. He was also the framer of the Constitution. Obviously, he was also into human rights and laws.
 
I put the link up in my previous post. Go look it up. He was also the framer of the Constitution. Obviously, he was also into human rights and laws.

I know who Wilson is and he was ONE OF THE FRAMERS...not THE FRAMER of the Constitution. There's a major difference.
 
What a spurious argument. Are you purposely trying to muddle what the actual debate point is all about? Yeah, born here you are persons. Not born here you are not persons. Make a lot of sense.:doh

I was simplifying for you as you were making it more difficult than it needed to be... The argument is a legal one applying to the United States so the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States applies to people born in this country or to United States Citizens. I would say that obviously Americans feel that people born outside the USA are also people with personhood but unfortunately our laws do not apply in other countries.
 
I know who Wilson is and he was ONE OF THE FRAMERS...not THE FRAMER of the Constitution. There's a major difference.
James Wilson | U.S. Founding Father | ConstitutionDay.com

He was one of America's first legal philosophers and was among the noted men who signed the United States Declaration of Independence and is often cited as among the most influential constitutional convention delegates, second only to James Madison. Wilson was a legal theoretician and elected twice to Continental Congress. He was one of six justices appointed by George Washington for the first Supreme Court of the United States. He was prominent as a leading proponent among the Framers of the United States Constitution in drafting the United States Constitution.
 
Your ignorance on the Constitutional relationship to women's right to abort is something you choose to live with. Despite the provisions within those Amendments being so easy to explain how they do allow for women's right to abort, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

Translation: you made up a stupid argument you can't defend, because your entire argument hinges on hallucinating words into existence.
 
I was simplifying for you as you were making it more difficult than it needed to be... The argument is a legal one applying to the United States so the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States applies to people born in this country or to United States Citizens. I would say that obviously Americans feel that people born outside the USA are also people with personhood but unfortunately our laws do not apply in other countries.
Naturalization as mentioned in 14th amendment is not a foreign law. It's the law of the land applicable within the US. It does not apply in a foreign country. But, we are not talking about that, are we?
 
James Wilson | U.S. Founding Father | ConstitutionDay.com

He was one of America's first legal philosophers and was among the noted men who signed the United States Declaration of Independence and is often cited as among the most influential constitutional convention delegates, second only to James Madison. Wilson was a legal theoretician and elected twice to Continental Congress. He was one of six justices appointed by George Washington for the first Supreme Court of the United States. He was prominent as a leading proponent among the Framers of the United States Constitution in drafting the United States Constitution.

I've spent the time looking at every post you've made and nothing has any documents, which Wilson discusses raised issues about the yet to be born...in any capacity. Give me a post number in case I missed it.
 
I've spent the time looking at every post you've made and nothing has any documents, which Wilson discusses raised issues about the yet to be born...in any capacity. Give me a post number in case I missed it.
It's somewhere in the first few posts of the first page of this thread. The article is very long and the quote was taken from the text far way down the document. It's a very long philosophical discourse entitled "Of the Natural Rights of Individuals".
 
Last edited:
It's somewhere in the first few posts of the first page of this thread. The article is very long and the quote was taken from the text far way down the document. It's a very long philosophical discourse entitled "Of the Natural Rights of Individuals".

This is what I found:
With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.26 By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.

So this is what you build your arguments around that the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional?
 
This is what I found:
That's exactly what I quoted.


So this is what you build your arguments around that the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional?

Who ever says the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional? Boy, I don't know how proabortion people always twist things around.:doh

Yeah, good night!
 
Last edited:
Naturalization as mentioned in 14th amendment is not a foreign law. It's the law of the land applicable within the US. It does not apply in a foreign country.

:roll: that is what I just said...
 
It doesn't matter what the Church decide if it is not what the Bible says.
OH? Do you thing God literally sat down somewhere and personally wrote the Bible? There are NO Religions making any such claim!! It was entirely written by humans, and it is well-known that humans are able to LIE for their own benefit. So, did you notice how Moses, claimed to be the author of a significant chunk of the Bible, created a government that put himself on top of the social heap? Why should anything he supposedly wrote be believed?

I don't think the Church nor you can find anything in the Bible with regards to the so-called "ensoulment" or "quickening" in relation to "ensoulment". But this thread is not about the Bible. So, let's just not stray from the topic, which is the Constitution, particularly the 5th and 14th amendment.
You seem to have missed the point, there. Enough pregnant women have been killed in city-sacks across thousands of years, with their bellies ripped open, that anyone who looked could see many different sizes of embryos. Even before quickening, there was obvious growth. No one doubts plants are alive, but few plants do any moving not caused by wind (venus flytraps, for example). And since semen is also called "seed", we know that long ago they hypothesized unborn humans growing like plants. So why was quickening special enough for anti-abortion laws? According to the Church (and for centuries), ensoulment happened at that time, and we all know that it is Standard Religious Doctrine that souls are associated with Judge-able volition.

Then the Church changed its tune, claiming ensoulment happened at conception, and anti-abortion laws got changed to ban it almost entirely (when before it was mostly OK if done before quickening). We cannot entirely ignore Religion in the Overall Abortion Debate, since many folks base their objection on Religious claims. The fact that most of the claims are unproved matters not-at-all to those folks. But what might matter to them is an argument showing those Religion-based claims to be nonsensical, and therefore they are DISprove-able. So here is some data about where identical twins, triplets, etc come from, days AFTER conception. Keeping in mind the claim that souls are immune to physical events, and assuming that a zygote is associated with just one soul, where do the rest come from during the RARE event that yields multiple identical siblings? Nothing even remotely like conception happens at that time! And therefore it is nonsensical to claim that conception MUST be associated with ensoulment! You could also research human "chimeras", and ask why a chimeric human doesn't have two souls, when that body exists as a result of two separate conceptions that joined forces, neither dying in the process. And so again it is nonsensical to claim conception MUST be associated with ensoulment.

What does NASA got to do with this abortion debate?
NASA is relevant to a Question about why quickening happens at all. Volition has nothing to do with it! Kicking in the womb is entirely "autonomic", exists to promote bone growth, and is not limited to unborn humans (unborn rats and dogs and plenty other mammals kick in the womb, too). Therefore any claim is suspect, that claims quickening is associated with ensoulment and volition.

Prometus was trying to argue that state proabortion law prior to Roe v Wade was enacted to protect the pregnant women and not the fetus. So, why would the State determine the stage of quickening if pregnant women, whom the State allegedly wants to protect, weren't the ones doing the quickening?
Remember what I wrote elsewhere, about the State having a vested interest in future taxpayers. Perhaps (influenced by Religious claims), the lawmakers chose quickening as a point to put the State's interests ahead of the woman's interests. And perhaps the public record of the legislative sessions that produced that law will tell you the answer to your question.

Nobody here is arguing about the merit of the common law except you. And you're making up stuffs just so you rant on about something that causes me to scratch my head ... and say, "What the heck?"
BE SPECIFIC. What stuff are you saying I made up?

(end of 1st of 4 parts)
 
Back
Top Bottom