• 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]

Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

Say what you mean or mean what you say. As usual you'll turn everything around to suit your argument. Lo Siento. No buenos. You said exactly what you meant. DESERVE, DESERVE, DESERVE.

This is what you came for...to smooth things out...make a fresh whatever and you wind up with "YOU LOSE!".....???? What a pant load, Bod. Seriously, thought you were half-ass civil, but nawwwwh, should have known better.

Your argument fails in so many ways.

You've just joined the ranks with DolphinOcean, Ramfel, Jay, and a few other.

No, I'm not conflating anything. You just made the wildest spin ever. Read post 1187.

Man, in desperation you'll say anything...seriously.

You started the insults and when I don't come back with flowers you get all whiney, jeezus man, grow a pair.

Regarding the post... you refuted nothing. I disproved your argument. Done. Anything else that is non-drama?
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

YOUR CONTINUING FAILURE TO ADDRESS MY ARGUMENTS MERELY INCREASES THE DEGREE TO WHICH YOU QUALIFY AS A DEBATE LOSER. Are you ever going to pick some small part of my arguments, and explain in detail how and why the argument fails to be sensible, rational, factual, and otherwise correct?

Wow... not sure anything can be more ironic than this post.
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

"EVERYONE" refers to "every person". It doesn't say "every human". It doesn't include mere-animal entities like sharks. IF dolphins become Formally Recognized as persons by the UN, that "Everyone" in Article 3 would include them. Unborn humans, however, are still mere-animal entities, not persons. Note that abortion is legal in a lot of nations that are members of the United Nations....

I don't care about the legal semantics regarding what makes a person a person... an unborn child 1 hour before birth is every bit the person that an infant is 3 minutes post-birth. In fact, that unborn child is more a person than a person that is in a coma. Semantic legal silliness is a waste of time when we are discussing biology. My argument was to show that the 14th does not state anything about the unborn NOT being a person. Even if it did they would still be wrong. Remember the times... they also only counted black people as 3/5ths a person for the census.
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

Not sure what your point is but a human being is different than a rock being...
conscious, mortal existence; life:
Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.
3. substance or nature:
of such a being as to arouse fear.
4. something that exists:
inanimate beings.
5. a living thing:

Being | Define Being at Dictionary.com
The point was that both and unborn human and a rock exist --therefore both could be called "beings" based on one of the definitions of the word. However, that particular definition is not the one normally meant, when phrases like "a human being" and "an extraterrestrial being" are used. For the definition of "being" that is normally meant, synonymous with "person", unborn humans don't qualify. As I explained in detail. And just because something is a living thing, that doesn't qualify it for that meaning of "being", else phrases such as "a turtle being" and "a toad being" would be common --and they aren't.

Regarding your other message and "legal semantics", perhaps I should point out that your opinion is not what the Law follows. We all know the Law is ARBITRARY, and therefore, when the Law draws a line, that is what the Law says, regardless of sensibility. (Example, think about different laws can be with respect to growing marijuana on either side of the line between two states.) I pointed out that US Law recognizes person status for humans at birth, and not before, and the Law has been consistent in that recognition for more than 220 years.

I also pointed out that with respect to scientific data (biology and human mental development), neither the unborn nor the recently born qualify as persons, which makes them exactly as equal to each other as your opinion states. Why did you ignore that, if "biology" is a basis of your reasoning?
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

Jeeesh... by deserve I meant have their rights protected, not that big a deal, relax.



You are conflating three issues. Being born, being a citizen and having rights.

Non-citizens have rights. Citizens have rights. It says nothing of the unborn despite how hard you are trying to twist it.

The 14th Amendment talks about being born and once you are born you are a citizen. That is it.

Now, the USA is bound by all treaties that is signs.

US Consitution:
Article 6. ...all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...


https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

Once the United States signed the United nations we are bound by the UN's version of Human Rights as well

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

So again we are back to this:

"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."

That's it... born persons in the USA are citizens. It says nothing of the unborn. At this point you need to prove that an unborn human being is not a person. A legal definition will not cut it as this is a biological argument.

Sorry... this angle is a dead end and you lose.

Speaking about the UN and Human Rights...
The UN committee has deemed abortion is a human right.

For the first time in history, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has punished a country for denying a citizen an abortion. Through this decision, the UN committee has deemed abortion a human right — and it should be. The ability to decide whether or not you become a parent is not a luxury, but a basic right we all deserve.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/1392...red-abortion-a-human-right-here-are-5-reasons

And from the following linked article:

Most choose abortion

Most women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of anencephaly choose abortion.
In a recent review of the world’s literature, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that overall 83% of women in this setting chose abortion, ranging from 59% to 100% in individual studies.

This CDC study confirmed earlier evidence that most women who learn of serious fetal defects during pregnancy choose abortion.

United Nations Committee Affirms Abortion as a Human Right
 
Last edited:
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

Wow... not sure anything can be more ironic than this post.
TSK, TSK. Are you, too, going to spout generic denunciations without presenting specifics supported by evidence?
 
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

The point was that both and unborn human and a rock exist --therefore both could be called "beings" based on one of the definitions of the word. However, that particular definition is not the one normally meant, when phrases like "a human being" and "an extraterrestrial being" are used. For the definition of "being" that is normally meant, synonymous with "person", unborn humans don't qualify. As I explained in detail. And just because something is a living thing, that doesn't qualify it for that meaning of "being", else phrases such as "a turtle being" and "a toad being" would be common --and they aren't.

Regarding your other message and "legal semantics", perhaps I should point out that your opinion is not what the Law follows. We all know the Law is ARBITRARY, and therefore, when the Law draws a line, that is what the Law says, regardless of sensibility. (Example, think about different laws can be with respect to growing marijuana on either side of the line between two states.) I pointed out that US Law recognizes person status for humans at birth, and not before, and the Law has been consistent in that recognition for more than 220 years.

I also pointed out that with respect to scientific data (biology and human mental development), neither the unborn nor the recently born qualify as persons, which makes them exactly as equal to each other as your opinion states. Why did you ignore that, if "biology" is a basis of your reasoning?

I didn't ignore it to be honest... I was seriously confused as to all you "rock being" and "human being" stuff. I have minor dyslexia AND I woke up at 2:34am this morning and never got back to bed so I am seriously tired. As such I am not going to go further with this "being" line of debate. One I am not following what you are trying to say apparently and two I find it kinda irrelevant. Don't call it a being for all I care. *shrug*

TSK, TSK. Are you, too, going to spout generic denunciations without presenting specifics supported by evidence?

Removable and I have a history that I am falling back on. If you don't understand why I made the comment, that is 100% relevant... that is fine with me.

EDIT: And why did you not respond to post #1203?
 
Last edited:
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

I didn't ignore it to be honest... I was seriously confused as to all you "rock being" and "human being" stuff. I have minor dyslexia AND I woke up at 2:34am this morning and never got back to bed so I am seriously tired.
Well, perhaps after you are rested you could look again at that Msg #1194.

A relatively important question is, Why Do We Bother calling humans "human beings"? --when we so-obviously don't do that for any other life-forms on Earth? ("dandelions" not "dandelion beings"; "minnows" not "minnow beings", and so on).

There is an obvious answer in terms of human egotism: We think we are special because we can think we are special --and we label ourselves accordingly. Well, most of us can think that, anyway. Our unborn, for example, totally lack that degree of mental ability, to think themselves to be special. Neither can human infants; all they mostly do is eat, sleep, and excrete. And while certain aspects of the Law properly recognizes that persons are minds, not bodies, other aspects of the Law are muchly simplified by focusing on bodies and ignoring non-existent minds.

In #1194 I mentioned the brain-dead adults on life-support. A dead brain means the mind is dead and the person is dead, so a Death Certificate gets filled out. The status of the body is otherwise irrelevant. At the other end of the spectrum, it is to be noted that Laws about personhood and birth existed long before any scientific data was gathered on the subject. Nevertheless, ignoring the concept of persons as minds, it just so happens that birth marks a HUGE turning point in the life of a human. Birth was an indisputable event, before modern incubators began to exist to help preemies survive. (My personal opinion is that they shouldn't be considered "born" until they don't need any equivalent of the womb environment to survive.)

One advantage the Law has, over scientific data, is its Arbitrariness. IF the Law was synchronized with scientific observations regarding when humans become more capable than ordinary animals (such that those humans start thinking of themselves as being special), then A Huge Bureaucracy Would Have To Be Established, to test each and every young human at multiple points after birth (because all humans develop at different rates from each other), seeking to detect the answer to this question: "Is he or she a person YET?" All of that, along with the associated expense, is completely eliminated by the simple Arbitrariness of assigning "legal person" status at birth, regardless of scientific status.


As such I am not going to go further with this "being" line of debate. One I am not following what you are trying to say apparently and two I find it kinda irrelevant. Don't call it a being for all I care. *shrug*
The word has its uses. If used consistently --and it mostly is, outside the Overall Abortion Debate-- it can aid in accurate communications. Only in the Overall Abortion Debate does "being" get mis-used.

EDIT: And why did you not respond to post #1203?
I DID, but perhaps not completely enough. While my #1204 was a direct response to your #1200, I also wrote, "Regarding your other message and "legal semantics" ---that was a reference to #1203. I see now that I didn't address all of what you wrote in #1203, so...

I do recognize that the 14th Amendment doesn't deny the possibility that unborn humans could be persons. BUT the Census Requirement of the Constitution --including how it got modified by part of the 14th Amendment-- wants ALL persons counted (except Indians not taxed). LOGICALLY, if unborn humans qualified as persons, then the Constitution requires that they be counted in the Census. It Is That Simple. But the fact is, they have never been counted. THEREFORE they have never been considered to be persons.

Regarding black people and the Census, you are mistaken. Only slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person, each. Black freedmen existed who were counted as full persons. White slaves existed (rare, though) who were counted as 3/5 of a person each. I'd say that reinforces the conclusion that unborn humans, not counted at all, didn't in the least qualify for person status! And after the 14th Amendment threw out that slave-counting stuff, unborn humans continued to be ignored by the Census, for about a century until Roe v Wade formally stated they were not persons (for reasons having nothing to do with the Census, but still consistent with that Census argument).
 
Last edited:
Re: Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:86

Oh, you finally came back. I thought you tuck tail and run like a debate loser you yourself described. Isn't that how you see it? Don't mind me... carrying on and talk to yourself.
This is probably the longest you ever stayed replying to your own thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom