• 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
Not sure how being called a choicer is an insult,... but ok.

Because it is a made up word, and it sounds negative. I mean would you want to be called any sort of er? I mean Breader, Breather, Eater, ****ter etc.

Are you willing to do a question and answer session,... one question at a time?

One question per post?[

Sure why not.
 
(I'm an atheist).

Oh, thank God!

:)rofl just kidding)


What I mean is this: The Constitution protects our rights as rational/thinking/feeling/conscious humans.

:stop: Please provide a reference or source which supports this claim.

Rocks don't have rights because they aren't conscious.

And here I thought that rocks don't have rights just because they aren't alive.

Animals don't have the same level of rights as us because they aren't at the same "level" as us.

Again,.. if you have a reference for this... can you provide it? It's not that I disagree,... but I really would like to see something in the way of a reference that supports your claim here.

Of course protecting the sentient "person" entails protecting the physical "person", because afaik the sentient originates in the physical, but human rights wouldn't make sense if humans weren't aware.

I'm curious.

How "aware" do you think my preemie daughter was, when she was born?

I would have few qualms about letting someone who has absolutely ZERO chance of waking up from a deep dreamless coma die.

Two years ago, my wife suffered full cardiac arrest. She required 45 minutes of CPR. She was hit with the defib at least nine times. She lapsed into a coma immediately,... her EEG was flatline. No dreams, no thoughts, no pain, no awareness, no sentience.

Twice, the neurologist came to me to ask if I have discussed with the family, chaplins and other dr.s about removing her from life support. She was rated a 3 (the worse possible) on the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Coma_Scale"]Coma Scale[/ame].

She remained in the coma for 3 weeks.

She was on a ventilator which was doing 100% of her breathing for her.

She had catheters for her bodily functions.

A feeding tube inserted directly into her stomach... (originally she was fed through a tube in her nose)

She was posturing (feet and hands drawn up like someone with cerebal palsy)

While she was on the vent, she contracted two infections - Mrsa and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acinetobacter"]Acinetobacter[/ame] .

Her prognosis was not a good one at all.

I share all of this with you as a preface to a really important question. (Important to me, that is... and I hope you will give it some thought before answering.)

"What doctor would pull the plug on a comatose patient (like my wife) if that patient had even a fraction of the prognosis (forecast) that a pre-birth child has?" [/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
To my poll question, "What aspect of a person does the Constitution protect?" Oxymoron,... you responded

Biological person obviously, and no- the fetus inside the tummy is not a person.

First question;

"Is you comment above just an opinion?"
 
To my poll question, "What aspect of a person does the Constitution protect?" Oxymoron,... you responded

First question;

"Is your comment above just an opinion?"

Why such a narrow time frame for editing a post?
 
:stop: Please provide a reference or source which supports this claim.

First Amendment?

I'm curious.

How "aware" do you think my preemie daughter was, when she was born?

According to you, aware enough to assert her "right to life".

Two years ago, my wife suffered full cardiac arrest. She required 45 minutes of CPR. She was hit with the defib at least nine times. She lapsed into a coma immediately,... her EEG was flatline. No dreams, no thoughts, no pain, no awareness, no sentience.

Twice, the neurologist came to me to ask if I have discussed with the family, chaplins and other dr.s about removing her from life support. She was rated a 3 (the worse possible) on the Coma Scale.

She remained in the coma for 3 weeks.

She was on a ventilator which was doing 100% of her breathing for her.

She had catheters for her bodily functions.

A feeding tube inserted directly into her stomach... (originally she was fed through a tube in her nose)

She was posturing (feet and hands drawn up like someone with cerebal palsy)

While she was on the vent, she contracted two infections - Mrsa and Acinetobacter .

Her prognosis was not a good one at all.

I share all of this with you as a preface to a really important question. (Important to me, that is... and I hope you will give it some thought before answering.)

"What doctor would pull the plug on a comatose patient (like my wife) if that patient had even a fraction of the prognosis (forecast) that a pre-birth child has?"

So what Doctor would abort a pre-birth child if they had next to 0 chance for survival? Well, since they weren't on artificial life support, I'd assume they might try to fix something, and if that didn't work let nature run its course or perform an abortion as per the Mother's wishes, Similar to the person on the life support machine, they would consult the relatives after exhausting the proper avenues.
 
To my poll question, "What aspect of a person does the Constitution protect?" Oxymoron,... you responded

Biological person obviously, and no the fetus inside the tummy is not a person.

First question;

"Is your comment above just an opinion?"

Obviously it is my interpetation of the Constitution, and obviously the Supreme Court agrees with that position. The Court values the mothers privacy rights over any potential human life inside the host.

I see.

Next question; If you were to be convienced that a "fetus inside the tummy" is a person,... would your interpretation of the Constitution change in regards to how it applies to abortion and or the Supreme Courts take?
 
Last edited:
I see.

Next question; If you were to be convienced that a "fetus inside the tummy" is a person,... would your interpretation of the Constitution change in regards to how it applies to abortion and or the Supreme Courts take?

Convinced.

Sorry.
 
If you were to be convienced that a "fetus inside the tummy" is a person,... would your interpretation of the Constitution change in regards to how it applies to abortion and or the Supreme Courts take?


Even If I am convinced that the fetus is in fact a person, that still creats the debate on whether the goverment has a right to force a delivery. I mean if the goverment can force a women to give birth, that implies that the goverment has control over a persons body, and eliminates any privacy protection. which puts me in a bind, if i consider the fetus a person for arguments sake (Which at this point i am not inclined to agree with) Then an abortion would be a crime, a crime which if the goverment prosecuted would infringe on a Americans integral privacy rights.....
 
Even If I am convinced that the fetus is in fact a person, that still creates the debate on whether the goverment has a right to force a delivery. I mean if the goverment can force a women to give birth, that implies that the goverment has control over a persons body, and eliminates any privacy protection. which puts me in a bind, if i consider the fetus a person for arguments sake (Which at this point i am not inclined to agree with) Then an abortion would be a crime, a crime which if the goverment prosecuted would infringe on a Americans integral privacy rights.....



So, if I am reading you correctly,... "one person have the right to kill another,.. so long as it is done in "privacy?"

Can you please what you just wrote and tell me how that (my interpretation) is different from what you just said?
 
So, if I am reading you correctly,... "one person have the right to kill another,.. so long as it is done in "privacy?"

Can you please what you just wrote and tell me how that (my interpretation) is different from what you just said?

Well its such a misrepresentation , that I would advise you to reread what I wrote.

The term privacy has more behind it then the simple definition you imply. Privacy rights, is actually your individual rights that the goverment cannot and should not breach. Privacy rights are the bedrock of the constitution. Its not simply killing someone in private, what privacy implies is an invisible wall between individual rights and goverment infringement of them. Best example is the 5th amendment.

If the fetus is a person and identified so by law, then an abortion could be a crime. there is where it gets tricky, if the fetus delivery risks the mothers life she would be legally able to get an abortion, and the goverment could not force a memogram, nor force the medical office to disclose your private history. So in essence a women could terminate a pregnancy out of fear for her life/health, and the goverment wouldnt be able to prove otherwise. The doctor could choose not to go ahead with it, but thats a different debate.
 
Back on topic here---being Nakid in ones own home is just fine. Closing the blinds would be in good taste, but not mandatory. Frying bacon while nakid is a no-no, as one soon finds out. :mrgreen:
 
Back on topic here---being Nakid in ones own home is just fine. Closing the blinds would be in good taste, but not mandatory. Frying bacon while nakid is a no-no, as one soon finds out. :mrgreen:

The topic of this thread is "What aspect of a person does the Constitution protect?"

What ratio of Rum to Egg Nog are you having tonight?
 
The topic of this thread is "What aspect of a person does the Constitution protect?"

What ratio of Rum to Egg Nog are you having tonight?
Oops, my bad folks---I left for a minute, and forgot where I was---never mind.
 
To explore..

The constitution plainly states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the united states are...citizens..."

This means that Persons + Born(or naturalized) = Citizens.
So, according to this, there is a seperation between "born" and "persons", and when there is both, you achieve citizenship.

This doesn't that we should deny "life liberty, and the persuit of happyness" because someone isnt a citizens, rather, we should deny it or not deny it based on our values.

and my values, say no, we shouldn't.
 
To explore..

The constitution plainly states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the united states are...citizens..."

This means that Persons + Born(or naturalized) = Citizens.
So, according to this, there is a seperation between "born" and "persons", and when there is both, you achieve citizenship.

This doesn't that we should deny "life liberty, and the persuit of happyness" because someone isnt a citizens, rather, we should deny it or not deny it based on our values.
and my values, say no, we shouldn't.

DarK,... The 5th and 14th Amendments actually goes even further than what you just said. They specifically state that all persons (be they citizens or not) have a right to their life,.. due process and equal PROTECTION under the laws.
 
Chuz--

Is your position that you want the US to make all abortions illegal? Should women who have abortions or the health professionals who offer that medical procedure go to prison?
 
Last edited:
Chuz--

(1) Is your position that you want the US to make all abortions illegal? (2) Should women who have abortions or the health professionals who offer that medical procedure go to prison?

1: No. Some abortions (life of the mother, rape, etc.) are in fact Constitutionally justifiable.

2: Yes. In some (but not all) circumstances, that is. Everyone has a right to due process, fair and speedy trial, face their accusers, jury of their peers, appeals, etc. So, realistically, every case is unique and the outcomes are not automatic.
 
1: No. Some abortions (life of the mother, rape, etc.) are in fact Constitutionally justifiable.

2: Yes. In some (but not all) circumstances, that is. Everyone has a right to due process, fair and speedy trial, face their accusers, jury of their peers, appeals, etc. So, realistically, every case is unique and the outcomes are not automatic.

I think your position on number 2 is untenable.
 
Not that it matters,... but

Why don't you think I can defend it?

Do you disagree that defendents have all the rights I listed?

We have enough people in prison as it is without creating a prison of unwed mothers. It sounds like you'd like to revert to the Magdalene homes again.

"Magdalene Asylums were institutions for so-called "fallen women", most of them operated by the Roman Catholic Church. In most asylums, the inmates were required to undertake hard physical labour such as laundry work. In Ireland, such asylums were known as Magdalene Laundries. It has been estimated that 30,000 women were admitted during the 150-year history of these institutions, often against their will, sometimes by state order. The last Magdalene Asylum in Ireland closed on September 25, 1996."

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Asylum[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Oh, thank God!

:)rofl just kidding)
Oh no! Not the G word! :mrgreen:

:stop: Please provide a reference or source which supports this claim.
5th Amendment said:
nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
It protects my life, liberty, or property from being taken without due process of law.


And here I thought that rocks don't have rights just because they aren't alive.
So you support poison ivy rights?



Again,.. if you have a reference for this... can you provide it? It's not that I disagree,... but I really would like to see something in the way of a reference that supports your claim here.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_intelligence"]This link[/ame] mentions some cognitive abilities, and limitations in dogs. In general dogs are more limited in their mental abilities than humans are.

I'm curious.

How "aware" do you think my preemie daughter was, when she was born?
More aware than someone in my coma example.


Two years ago, my wife suffered full cardiac arrest. She required 45 minutes of CPR. She was hit with the defib at least nine times. She lapsed into a coma immediately,... her EEG was flatline. No dreams, no thoughts, no pain, no awareness, no sentience.

Twice, the neurologist came to me to ask if I have discussed with the family, chaplins and other dr.s about removing her from life support. She was rated a 3 (the worse possible) on the Coma Scale.

She remained in the coma for 3 weeks.

She was on a ventilator which was doing 100% of her breathing for her.

She had catheters for her bodily functions.

A feeding tube inserted directly into her stomach... (originally she was fed through a tube in her nose)

She was posturing (feet and hands drawn up like someone with cerebal palsy)

While she was on the vent, she contracted two infections - Mrsa and Acinetobacter .

Her prognosis was not a good one at all.

I share all of this with you as a preface to a really important question. (Important to me, that is... and I hope you will give it some thought before answering.)

"What doctor would pull the plug on a comatose patient (like my wife) if that patient had even a fraction of the prognosis (forecast) that a pre-birth child has?"
I suppose that very few would. Do you mind telling how things turned out?
 
Two years ago, my wife suffered full cardiac arrest. She required 45 minutes of CPR. She was hit with the defib at least nine times. She lapsed into a coma immediately,... her EEG was flatline. No dreams, no thoughts, no pain, no awareness, no sentience.

Twice, the neurologist came to me to ask if I have discussed with the family, chaplins and other dr.s about removing her from life support. She was rated a 3 (the worse possible) on the Coma Scale.

She remained in the coma for 3 weeks.

She was on a ventilator which was doing 100% of her breathing for her.

She had catheters for her bodily functions.

A feeding tube inserted directly into her stomach... (originally she was fed through a tube in her nose)

She was posturing (feet and hands drawn up like someone with cerebal palsy)

While she was on the vent, she contracted two infections - Mrsa and Acinetobacter .

Her prognosis was not a good one at all.

I share all of this with you as a preface to a really important question. (Important to me, that is... and I hope you will give it some thought before answering.)

"What doctor would pull the plug on a comatose patient (like my wife) if that patient had even a fraction of the prognosis (forecast) that a pre-birth child has?"

I suppose that very few would. Do you mind telling how things turned out?

Thank you for a direct answer to my direct question.

You have earned a friend request if you are interested.

It has taken two years of therapy and recovery. My wife now breathes on her own, walks talks, showers and dresses herself (all with diminished capacities). She's very much the same person she was before... but some things have changed. (not all for the better). She still can not read, write, do math or anything like that above maybe a 2nd grade level. But she could have a conversation with you and understand what you are saying at almost any level.

For all that she has left to re-learn, she has to do so with a damaged brain.

I would guess that she's at between 60 and 70% of her old self and while I have hopes,.. I don't see how she will ever be completely independent again.
 
Thank you for a direct answer to my direct question.

You have earned a friend request if you are interested.

It has taken two years of therapy and recovery. My wife now breathes on her own, walks talks, showers and dresses herself (all with diminished capacities). She's very much the same person she was before... but some things have changed. (not all for the better). She still can not read, write, do math or anything like that above maybe a 2nd grade level. But she could have a conversation with you and understand what you are saying at almost any level.

For all that she has left to re-learn, she has to do so with a damaged brain.

I would guess that she's at between 60 and 70% of her old self and while I have hopes,.. I don't see how she will ever be completely independent again.
What's that have to do with the topic? :confused:
 
1: No. Some abortions (life of the mother, rape, etc.) are in fact Constitutionally justifiable.
If a human is granted rights at conception then why should people who get raped be able to violate the life of the fetus? Same with incest.

Can you clear this up for me?
 
Back
Top Bottom