Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong.

[Gordy327]

Logical fallacy

Constitutional fact!

 

[Lursa]

Logical fallacy

The words are perfectly clear...so please explain your disagreement with them. Directly, not weak Internet cliches.

Not only that, all federal laws interpret the 14th A exactly that way. I even posted the US Code (post 2236) based on it for you. So...is it English you have trouble with...or reality?

 

[weaver2]

That opinion is factually incorrect as many state do restrict abortion and have been upheld in the courts. You will need to ask them for the underlying legal basis, but there is nothing in the US Constitution preventing a state from declaring fetal personhood. It is utterly silent on the matter.

The Constitution is silent on the question of person-hood of the fetus because nobody in 1775 considered a fetus a person and the men gathered to re write the Articles of Confederation had more serious issues to deal with.
The states are silent today because very few legislators in those states flirting with calling a fetus a person know that doing so will open a legal, social, medical, cultural, religious and practical can of worms they haven't a clue how to deal with.
99.8% of all the fetal person-hood talk about murdering babies is just dumb bloviating from the religions right.

 

[eman623]

The Constitution is silent on the question of person-hood of the fetus because nobody in 1775 considered a fetus a person and the men gathered to re write the Articles of Confederation had more serious issues to deal with.
The states are silent today because very few legislators in those states flirting with calling a fetus a person know that doing so will open a legal, social, medical, cultural, religious and practical can of worms they haven't a clue how to deal with.
99.8% of all the fetal person-hood talk about murdering babies is just dumb bloviating from the religions right.

There are degrees of personhood.

Here in California, Scott Peterson was convicted of double-homicide for killing his 8 1/2 month pregnant wife and unborn son Conor. Assuming that only persons can be murdered, it would seem that Conor had sufficient person-hood to be capable of being murdered.

Seems to me this same principle could be used to outlaw abortion. When sufficient "person-ness" attaches to the fetus. then killing him or her becomes murder.

Thanks for acknowledging that the Constitution is silent on fetal personhood. I've stopped responding to other posters who are apparently too blinded by ideology to grasp simple Aristotelian logic.

 

[Gordy327]

There are degrees of personhood.

Here in California, Scott Peterson was convicted of double-homicide for killing his 8 1/2 month pregnant wife and unborn son Conor. Assuming that only persons can be murdered, it would seem that Conor had sufficient person-hood to be capable of being murdered.

Seems to me this same principle could be used to outlaw abortion. When sufficient "person-ness" attaches to the fetus. then killing him or her becomes murder.

Thanks for acknowledging that the Constitution is silent on fetal personhood. I've stopped responding to other posters who are apparently too blinded by ideology to grasp simple Aristotelian logic.

Nope, there is either a person or not a person. The Constitution and federal law make it clear personhood is at birth. The unborn are not persons. Fetal homicide laws, as absurd as they are, do not confer personhood status or rights.

 

[Lursa]

There are degrees of personhood.

No there are not. That's ridiculous. Cite that claim please.

Some states are trying to claim fetal personhood but federal law supersedes that....based on the Supremacy Clause.

Here in California, Scott Peterson was convicted of double-homicide for killing his 8 1/2 month pregnant wife and unborn son Conor. Assuming that only persons can be murdered, it would seem that Conor had sufficient person-hood to be capable of being murdered.

Double "homicide". Not murder?

And the sentence wasnt the same as for her murder, was it? (no)

Again...there are plenty of laws charging people for destroying that of someone else's...pets and livestock for instance. The person can kill their own but others can be charged with causing that loss and damage. Just like, again, abortion is explicitly called out in each of these fetal homicide laws as exempt.

But please cite the legal definition for 'sufficient personhood.'

The 14th Amendment says only "born." And that's pretty clear. You also ignored the US Code I linked to that was very specific. Did you read it? It also had zero "degrees" for persons. Right? Yes or no?

I have clearly cited my statements...please do the same.

Seems to me this same principle could be used to outlaw abortion. When sufficient "person-ness" attaches to the fetus. then killing him or her becomes murder.

So then why hasnt it? Certainly Dobbs would have if it could, right? It did not. But again, the 14th Amendment and federal court decisions based on it..."dont do so." The word "born" is specific.

Thanks for acknowledging that the Constitution is silent on fetal personhood. I've stopped responding to other posters who are apparently too blinded by ideology to grasp simple Aristotelian logic.

It's not silent. When is clearly says "born," it excluded "unborn." Do you need a dictionary for the words? And needing to hide from information you cant dispute isnt anything to be proud of, so you writing that you do it is silly.

 

[Bodi]

A list of rights that does not include a right to abortion in any trimester, or viability or whatever.

Even if abortion rights were mentioned in the Constitution you would still favor controlling women and making abortion illegal. Just own it.



,

 

[Bodi]

There are degrees of personhood.

Here in California, Scott Peterson was convicted of double-homicide for killing his 8 1/2 month pregnant wife and unborn son Conor. Assuming that only persons can be murdered, it would seem that Conor had sufficient person-hood to be capable of being murdered.

Nobody is calling for aborting 8 month old fetus's...

Seems to me this same principle could be used to outlaw abortion. When sufficient "person-ness" attaches to the fetus. then killing him or her becomes murder.

Then you remove medical necessity.

Thanks for acknowledging that the Constitution is silent on fetal personhood. I've stopped responding to other posters who are apparently too blinded by ideology to grasp simple Aristotelian logic.

 

[weaver2]

There are degrees of personhood.

Being a person isn't like a thermostat that delivers increasing or decreasing degrees of heat. One is either a person or is not a person. There is no such thing as a stage of 1/3 of a person or 2/3 or a full person at 3/3rds If you think there are degrees describe them and the current terminology.

Here in California, Scott Peterson was convicted of double-homicide for killing his 8 1/2 month pregnant wife and unborn son Conor. Assuming that only persons can be murdered, it would seem that Conor had sufficient person-hood to be capable of being murdered.Seems to me this same principle could be used to outlaw abortion. When sufficient "person-ness" attaches to the fetus. then killing him or her becomes murder.

Roe provided a perfectly rational and sensible way to limit or even ban abortion by stating the state had an identifiable and justifiable reason to limit or ban abortion in the 3rd trimester.You didn't like Roe and chucked in in favor of each state making up it's own rules for abortion.

Thanks for acknowledging that the Constitution is silent on fetal personhood. I've stopped responding to other posters who are apparently too blinded by ideology to grasp simple Aristotelian logic.

No one need Aristotle to determine personhood. The US code of legal definitions states that a person is a born being.

 

[eman623]

Even if abortion rights were mentioned in the Constitution you would still favor controlling women and making abortion illegal. Just own it.

Wrong on both counts.

 

[Bodi]

Being a person isn't like a thermostat that delivers increasing or decreasing degrees of heat. One is either a person or is not a person. There is no such thing as a stage of 1/3 of a person or 2/3 or a full person at 3/3rds If you think there are degrees describe them and the current terminology.

Roe provided a perfectly rational and sensible way to limit or even ban abortion by stating the state had an identifiable and justifiable reason to limit or ban abortion in the 3rd trimester.You didn't like Roe and chucked in in favor of each state making up it's own rules for abortion.

No one need Aristotle to determine personhood. The US code of legal definitions states that a person is a born being.

There are degrees.... there is a zygote, and embryo and a fetus.

 

[weaver2]

There are degrees.... there is a zygote, and embryo and a fetus.

OK, there's the zygote stage that lasts for a day or so. Define a legal person so that the definition applies to something that is 1/275th of a person. I can't think of any way in which that would be a logical or helpful definition. All you can say is that it has a legal status that prevents killing it. Which = ban abortions. Moving on to the embryo stage that lasts about 8 to 10 weeks . Again, legally define a person to be between 1/27 to about 10/27ths of a person and make a useful law for that partial person. The only law that can actually be applied is .............. ban/permit abortion. Do the same for fetus; up to this point there are no degrees in the rights or the law or the person-hood, even though there are different stages of development because at no stage has the entity been able to see, hear, think, move purposefully, live outside of the womb or been aware of it's being and the only law that can possibly apply is abort or not.

There are moral judgements one can make about person-hood, rights and abortion. They are all personal and each person has different perceptions. Those moral judgements come from one's personal philosophy, one's religion, one's past life experiences. But laws are made for everyone; they cannot be made to accommodate each person's individual morals, feelings, history, etc. That's just chaos but that's what the Christian Right is demanding. They feel that killing a fetus is wrong. That's fine. They should follow their hearts and not abort. They should leave other's alone to follow what they know is right.

At the point of viability Roe said the state, because there is a chance that the fetus could live outside the womb as a person, has an interest in the preservation and and care of its population and the rules change; Roe said the state can ban abortion.

Roe seem like an immanently sensible decision. What we have now are states where the religious right wingers are the majority, but are ignorant of how laws work desperately making up one shit-law after another to control some failure of their previous shit-law. It's chaos. And the result is that abortions have actually increased, maternal and infant death rates are up, the number of children born with birth defects has increased and it is simply a matter of time before the abuse and violence against children increases.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Seems to me this same principle could be used to outlaw abortion. When sufficient "person-ness" attaches to the fetus. then killing him or her becomes murder.

We kill persons all day long. Fetuses shouldn't have equal rights to the women who carry them.

 

[Gordy327]

We kill persons all day long. Fetuses shouldn't have equal rights to the women who carry them.

And they do not. Not according to the Constitution and federal law.

 

[The Brad Dad]

And they do not. Not according to the Constitution and federal law.

Depends on how we start interpreting things. The right knows they could never get things passed as amendments, so the new trick is to re-interpret things.

 

[Spock]

Being a person isn't like a thermostat that delivers increasing or decreasing degrees of heat. One is either a person or is not a person. There is no such thing as a stage of 1/3 of a person or 2/3 or a full person at 3/3rds If you think there are degrees describe them and the current terminology.

Roe provided a perfectly rational and sensible way to limit or even ban abortion by stating the state had an identifiable and justifiable reason to limit or ban abortion in the 3rd trimester.You didn't like Roe and chucked in in favor of each state making up it's own rules for abortion.

No one need Aristotle to determine personhood. The US code of legal definitions states that a person is a born being.

Roe had the seeds of its own destruction. There is no way to partially allow abortion. The pregnant women must have autonomy over her body for the entire duration of pregnancy.

 

[Gordy327]

Depends on how we start interpreting things. The right knows they could never get things passed as amendments, so the new trick is to re-interpret things.

The constitution and federal law are quite clear that a fetus is not a legal person and therefore have no rights. Of course, that hasn't stopped some states from trying, and failing, to establish fetal personhood.

 

[poppopfox]

There are degrees of personhood.

Here in California, Scott Peterson was convicted of double-homicide for killing his 8 1/2 month pregnant wife and unborn son Conor. Assuming that only persons can be murdered, it would seem that Conor had sufficient person-hood to be capable of being murdered.

Seems to me this same principle could be used to outlaw abortion. When sufficient "person-ness" attaches to the fetus. then killing him or her becomes murder.

Thanks for acknowledging that the Constitution is silent on fetal personhood. I've stopped responding to other posters who are apparently too blinded by ideology to grasp simple Aristotelian logic.

Aristotelian logic is anything but "simple."
Aristotle’s Logic

 

[AZRWinger]

The constitution and federal law are quite clear that a fetus is not a legal person and therefore have no rights. Of course, that hasn't stopped some states from trying, and failing, to establish fetal personhood.

Legal definition of person.

"The term "person" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(6) to mean any individual person as well as natural and legal entities."

There is no specification for having been born. In fact "natural and legal entities" are considered legal persons without being born as humans. The unique mix of DNA in the unborn child makes them a distinguishable person.

The 14th Amendment begins

"All persons born in the United States..."

All persons is the subject of the amendment. Personhood isn't dependent on being born. The amendment text goes on to deal with citizenship. It's nothing but creative abortionist parsing to suggest it authorizes the mass slaughter of the unborn.

The 5th amendment likewise begins with the subject of "person". Again, personhood isn't subject to being born. The amendment specifies

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

The Constitution and Federal law are consistent in the use of "person". There is no qualifier reducing the unborn into a disposable subspecies.

 

[Spock]

Legal definition of person.

"The term "person" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(6) to mean any individual person as well as natural and legal entities."

There is no specification for having been born. In fact "natural and legal entities" are considered legal persons without being born as humans. The unique mix of DNA in the unborn child makes them a distinguishable person.

The 14th Amendment begins

"All persons born in the United States..."

All persons is the subject of the amendment. Personhood isn't dependent on being born. The amendment text goes on to deal with citizenship. It's nothing but creative abortionist parsing to suggest it authorizes the mass slaughter of the unborn.

The 5th amendment likewise begins with the subject of "person". Again, personhood isn't subject to being born. The amendment specifies

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

The Constitution and Federal law are consistent in the use of "person". There is no qualifier reducing the unborn into a disposable subspecies.

Definition of "person" is what? Your definition is that a person is a person.

 

[weaver2]

Definition of "person" is what? Your definition is that a person is a person.

Title 18 deal with crime, criminal law and proceedings and US prisons. Chapter 2510 is the section on foreign relations and crime. And the definition of "person" applies to chapter 2510 only. The actual wording for person in this title is (6) “person” means any employee, or agent of the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, or corporation;
This has nothing to do with person-hood and you haven't quoted it correctly .

Title 1 of the US code defines human being
U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

 

[weaver2]

The 5th amendment likewise begins with the subject of "person". Again, personhood isn't subject to being born. The amendment specifies "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Hey, aren't you one of those AZ conservatives that are enthusiastically supporting the denial of due process to immigrants you don't like and denying them life liberty and property. So Latinos aren't persons but a 32 celled blastocyst is a legal person and cannot be aborted?
News Flash: Women can, will and do choose to abort no matter what the law says and there is nothing you can do to prevent it from happening since the embryo is inside the woman and not inside you.

 

[Lursa]

Legal definition of person.

"The term "person" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(6) to mean any individual person as well as natural and legal entities."

There is no specification for having been born. In fact "natural and legal entities" are considered legal persons without being born as humans. The unique mix of DNA in the unborn child makes them a distinguishable person.

The 14th Amendment begins

"All persons born in the United States..."

All persons is the subject of the amendment. Personhood isn't dependent on being born. The amendment text goes on to deal with citizenship. It's nothing but creative abortionist parsing to suggest it authorizes the mass slaughter of the unborn.

The 5th amendment likewise begins with the subject of "person". Again, personhood isn't subject to being born. The amendment specifies

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

The Constitution and Federal law are consistent in the use of "person". There is no qualifier reducing the unborn into a disposable subspecies.

Weaver2 posted the US Code that applies specifically to humans and takes great effort to be very clear. So the unborn do not qualify as persons as referred to in the 14th A. See her post 2271 and here is a link to that US Code. U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

 

[Spock]

Title 18 deal with crime, criminal law and proceedings and US prisons. Chapter 2510 is the section on foreign relations and crime. And the definition of "person" applies to chapter 2510 only. The actual wording for person in this title is (6) “person” means any employee, or agent of the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, or corporation;
This has nothing to do with person-hood and you haven't quoted it correctly .

Title 1 of the US code defines human being
U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

That appears dismiss post #2269 as incorrect.

 

[Gordy327]

Legal definition of person.

"The term "person" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(6) to mean any individual person as well as natural and legal entities."

There is no specification for having been born. In fact "natural and legal entities" are considered legal persons without being born as humans. The unique mix of DNA in the unborn child makes them a distinguishable person.

The 14th Amendment begins

"All persons born in the United States..."

All persons is the subject of the amendment. Personhood isn't dependent on being born. The amendment text goes on to deal with citizenship. It's nothing but creative abortionist parsing to suggest it authorizes the mass slaughter of the unborn.

The 5th amendment likewise begins with the subject of "person". Again, personhood isn't subject to being born. The amendment specifies

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

The Constitution and Federal law are consistent in the use of "person". There is no qualifier reducing the unborn into a disposable subspecies.

Weaver and Lursa beat me to it. As they demonstrated, "person" is a legal term with a specific legal definition. It should also be noted that neither the federal government or any state acknowledges or recognizes unborn personhood with rights. Only Alabama comes close and even then its within the context of abortion, as an excuse to restrict it.