Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Abortion and Immigration Rules

  1. #1
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,242

    Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Could be that I'm not catching the finer points of both arguments in this.

    I seem to recall that among the various rationalizations in support of legalized abortion is the fact that the unborn have no rights because they have not yet been born and, of course, have not been naturalized.

    Since they are not American Citizens, they are afforded no protections or immunities guaranteed under the Constitution or judicial precedent.

    Recently, Liberal judges are awarding rights enjoyed by American citizens to folks who were not born in the USA OR naturalized. They seem to be saying that all people, regardless of legal definition, have the normal and usual rights and immunities accorded to citizens of the US.

    The rulings establish rights that don't exist and deny Presidential authority that is Constitutionally established and defined.

    Will this act of legal gymnastics come around to affect other areas of American law?

    American citizenship legal definition of American citizenship

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourte...s_Constitution
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  2. #2
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    That is a good point and while I of course frown on judicial activism, if that turnabout became fair play, I would not be surprised and they would have no leg to stand on contesting it.

  3. #3
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,749
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    Could be that I'm not catching the finer points of both arguments in this.

    I seem to recall that among the various rationalizations in support of legalized abortion is the fact that the unborn have no rights because they have not yet been born and, of course, have not been naturalized.
    Sorry, you are mistaken.

    The ruling in Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was based on a right to privacy in control of ones own body. It also held that this right only extended until viability of the fetus, at which point it is protected and cannot be aborted (with the exception it may occur to preserve the life of the mother. See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)).

    This has NOTHING to do with being a "naturalized citizen." At best one might argue it as a birthright citizenship issue (under the 14th Amendment) since the child has not been born, only conceived, in the USA. But that is weak sauce in terms of your argument's premise. IMO you cannot conflate this with the Immigration issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    Recently, Liberal judges are awarding rights enjoyed by American citizens to folks who were not born in the USA OR naturalized. They seem to be saying that all people, regardless of legal definition, have the normal and usual rights and immunities accorded to citizens of the US.

    The rulings establish rights that don't exist and deny Presidential authority that is Constitutionally established and defined.

    Will this act of legal gymnastics come around to affect other areas of American law?
    First, when it comes to basic rights remember that neither citizenship, nor our Constitution grants inherent rights. These constructs only serve to protect them in our society from infringement.

    Second, I agree that while we must assert that all humans share these inherent rights...free access to our (or any) nation and the privileges such citizenship entails is NOT part of this essential "liberty" protection.

    This is where those judges are erring with such broadly sweeping rulings IMO.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 03-18-17 at 10:51 AM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  4. #4
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Granted, there IS no "right to privacy" and Blackmun was demonstrably just making **** up, but hey.

  5. #5
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,242

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Sorry, you are mistaken.

    The ruling in Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was based on a right to privacy in control of ones own body. It also held that this right only extended until viability of the fetus, at which point it is protected and cannot be aborted (with the exception it may occur to preserve the life of the mother. See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)).

    This has NOTHING to do with being a "naturalized citizen." At best one might argue it as a birthright citizenship issue (under the 14th Amendment) since the child has not been born, only conceived, in the USA. But that is weak sauce in terms of your argument's premise. IMO you cannot conflate this with the Immigration issue.



    First, when it comes to basic rights remember that neither citizenship, nor our Constitution grants inherent rights. These constructs only serve to protect them in our society from infringement.

    Second, I agree that while we must assert that all humans share these inherent rights...free access to our (or any) nation and the privileges such citizenship entails is NOT part of this essential "liberty" protection.

    This is where those judges are erring with such broadly sweeping rulings IMO.
    In discussions on this board, I was instructed that no protections of citizenship could be accorded to the unborn under law because they were not born and therefore were not citizens.

    The 14th Amendment was cited in these references.

    Hillary Clinton has also said as much:

    Hillary Clinton: ?The Unborn Person Doesn?t Have Constitutional Rights?
    <snip>
    Clinton: Well, under our laws, currently, that is not something that exists.

    The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.

    Now that doesn`t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.

    It doesn’t mean that you don’t do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations, but it does not include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions.

    And I think that’s an important distinction that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had enshrined under our Constitution.
    <snip>
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  6. #6
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,749
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    In discussions on this board, I was instructed that no protections of citizenship could be accorded to the unborn under law because they were not born and therefore were not citizens.

    The 14th Amendment was cited in these references.

    Hillary Clinton has also said as much:

    Hillary Clinton: ?The Unborn Person Doesn?t Have Constitutional Rights?
    <snip>
    Clinton: Well, under our laws, currently, that is not something that exists.

    The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.

    Now that doesn`t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.

    It doesn’t mean that you don’t do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations, but it does not include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions.

    And I think that’s an important distinction that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had enshrined under our Constitution.
    <snip>
    So if you were "instructed" that a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich had no rights because it was not a citizen would that have any weight in any argument?

    You are making an appeal to authority, and IMO a weak one.

    You are misusing (as do others) citations from the 14th Amendment.

    The abortion argument often devolves around various talking points. Among which is a citizenship rights contention which is ultimately based on the Pro-Life argument that conception equates to humanity which should be protected from "murder" via the abortion process.

    A corollary of this argument is that any "human being" conceived within the confines of the USA should be presumed a U.S. citizen protected by law from harm.

    But that is only ONE way of looking at the argument, one primarily favored by Pro-Life adherents.

    It is just an anti-abortion argument though, not a fact. Regardless, it has nothing to do with the standing law regarding abortion which is based on privacy rights rather than with citizenship, despite all the appeals to authority you make.

    Meanwhile, I stand by my position that abortion arguments have no place in the Immigration discussion.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 03-18-17 at 11:24 AM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  7. #7
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,242

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    So if you were "instructed" that a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich had no rights because it was not a citizen would that have any weight in any argument?

    You are making an appeal to authority, and IMO a weak one.

    You are misusing (as do others) citations from the 14th Amendment.

    The abortion argument often devolves around various talking points. Among which is a citizenship rights contention which is ultimately based on the Pro-Life argument that conception equates to humanity which should be protected from "murder" via the abortion process.

    A corollary of this argument is that any "human being" conceived within the confines of the USA should be presumed a U.S. citizen protected by law from harm.

    But that is only ONE way of looking at the argument, one primarily favored by Pro-Life adherents.

    It is just an anti-abortion argument though, not a fact. Regardless, it has nothing to do with the standing law regarding abortion which is based on privacy rights rather than with citizenship, despite all the appeals to authority you make.

    Meanwhile, I stand by my position that abortion arguments have no place in the Immigration discussion.

    One of the "Minnesota Twins", Justice Blackmun addressed the idea of personhood directly as it is affected by the 14th Amendment.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443281

    <snip>
    Justice Harry Blackmun responded, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

    However, Justice Blackmun then came to the conclusion "that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."
    <snip>
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  8. #8
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,749
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443281

    <snip>
    Justice Harry Blackmun responded, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

    However, Justice Blackmun then came to the conclusion "that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."
    <snip>
    ...and so you make my argument for me.

    Once again, the law as established under Roe v. Wade already protects viable fetuses from abortion without any reference to "citizenship" standing.

    A citizen of another country cannot come to the USA and have an abortion once the fetus is considered viable.

    The law under Doe v. Bolton allows late-term abortion only in cases of threat to the mother's life, when no other option to save the fetus while preserving her life is available.

    Abortion has nothing to do with Immigration. If you can't see this then there is no use arguing.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 03-18-17 at 11:55 AM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  9. #9
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,910
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    Could be that I'm not catching the finer points of both arguments in this.

    I seem to recall that among the various rationalizations in support of legalized abortion is the fact that the unborn have no rights because they have not yet been born and, of course, have not been naturalized.

    Since they are not American Citizens, they are afforded no protections or immunities guaranteed under the Constitution or judicial precedent.

    Recently, Liberal judges are awarding rights enjoyed by American citizens to folks who were not born in the USA OR naturalized. They seem to be saying that all people, regardless of legal definition, have the normal and usual rights and immunities accorded to citizens of the US.

    The rulings establish rights that don't exist and deny Presidential authority that is Constitutionally established and defined.

    Will this act of legal gymnastics come around to affect other areas of American law?

    American citizenship legal definition of American citizenship

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourte...s_Constitution
    We have a dangerous situation in this country in that it is not the elected representatives of the people (the Congress) signed by the elected President of the country who decide what the law of the land will be. The law of the land is now determined by judges who somehow have been given power to dictate what the law of the land will be.

    This was NEVER intended by the Founders or the people when they signed and the states ratified the Constitution of the United States. For the judges to do this is in itself unconstitutional.

    IMO, even when the court declares a law unconstitutional, the power is not given to the court to overturn the law. It is incumbant upon the CONGRESS, sworn to uphold the Constitution, to overturn or amend the law. If they do not, and we the people believe our elected representatives are not fulfilling their obligation to uphold the Constitution, then it is up to us to deal with it at the ballot box or by recall of our elected representatives.

    It is a very dangerous thing when the court takes upon itself to ignore the law of the land and put into effect what it thinks the law should be.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  10. #10
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,242

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    ...and so you make my argument for me.

    Once again, the law as established under Roe v. Wade already protects viable fetuses from abortion without any reference to "citizenship" standing.

    A citizen of another country cannot come to the USA and have an abortion once the fetus is considered viable.

    The law under Doe v. Bolton allows late-term abortion only in cases of threat to the mother's life, when no other option to save the fetus while preserving her life is available.

    Abortion has nothing to do with Immigration. If you can't see this then there is no use arguing.
    Not saying that abortion has anything to do with immigration.

    Only saying that the definitions that guide the award of citizen rights are applied unequally between the two considerations.

    As I said, I may not be catching the finer points of the two arguments.

    Is it appropriate to bestow the rights of American citizens on those who are not American Citizens?

    Should we be prosecuting murderers in Kuwait, for example, as murderers in US Courts because they killed a human in Kuwait? Do all humans around the world have rights under US law?
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •