• 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!

W:276]14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

1.) What about the rights of the unborn?
2.) Aren't they a person also?
3.) What happened to their rights?
4.) I have yet to see any scientific evidence that a fetus is not a person.
5.)"deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

1.) what rights are you referring too? they dont have legal rights . .i do have human rights if you believe in them
2.) legally, no. persons are born
3.) again what rights are you talkign about. list them
4.) none is needed because person in this regard is a legal term not scientific.
If you want scientific the words you are looking for are human (adj) and A human (noun)

a ZEF is always human (adj), a Fetus is always a human (noun)

5.) see thats perfect that is based on legality and ZEFs are not persons in that regard

but even if they were the issue is . . .so is the woman and because one life resides inside another theres no way to give equal rights . . one will always lose out
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

1.) Sorry but you haven't given any basis or proof that a fetus isn't a person. I'll go first:
2.) Why is it okay to kill a fetus that is developed enough to survive on it's own?

1.) no proof is needed its a fact they arent persons based on law, that was already posted in the OP
2.) ?????? what country are you from? :shock::shock:

can you tell us how often that happens in america? I dont know of any that are legal and dont fall in to the exceptions rule or risks to mother or ZEF etc etc

only 1.3% of abortions happen after 21 weeks, the earliest possible viability and that still doesn't fit your description of surviving on their own. ANd no im not talking crazy stuff like feed and bath themselves im talking basics, like without intense medical help they do not make it

RvW is written based on 50% and thats at 24 weeks!

so again where do you thinkn this is happening?
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

What about the rights of the unborn? Aren't they a person also? What happened to their rights? I have yet to see any scientific evidence that a fetus is not a person.

"deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

What are the paths to citizenship? Well, a person can be born a citizen or be naturalized. The point is, citizenship is open to all people. By the terms of the 14th Amendment, there is no class of person to which citizenship can be denied absent due process of law. So let me ask you this.... is there any way whatsoever that a fetus can become a citizen until it is born?
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

I agree with the decision. If a woman doesn't have domain over her own body, then what rights does she have? I see it as more a 9th Amendment question than a 14th Amendment one... women have a right to privacy consistent with Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965) (see especially Justice Goldberg's concurrence).

The only time I see a potential 14th Amendment anti-abortion argument is only when the fetus reaches the point of viability at roughly the end of the second trimester, consistent with Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe. But even here, the life and/or health of the mother must take precedence over any hypothetical rights of the fetus.

So you then would be all for prostitution, and for a person selling their own organs for money? In addition you would be for no incarceration of criminals because it denies them domain over their own body in that they are not free to move about. Going back to the required service in the military, the country could not draft young men or women to serve in the military because they would have to risk their lives possibly against their will. Again losing complete domain over their own body.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Sorry but you haven't given any basis or proof that a fetus isn't a person. I'll go first:

Why is it okay to kill a fetus that is developed enough to survive on it's own?

There are none, nor any body capable of giving such a definition.

So each law making body draws up its own rules.

I stand on the definition as a fetus become a person when the brain starts to develop.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Do you guys agree or disagree with the Supreme Court Ruling on Roe V Wade? ON A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS ONLY - I dont want this to evolve into a pro life or pro choice debate, I want to keep the discussion in line and framed from a purely consitutional perspective.

I want to see support for the decision in favor of this ruling OR support for the dissenting opinion. Please provide background and personal opinion and why you agree or disagree. The SCOTUS RULED 7-2 in favor of Roe in 1973.

Amendment XIV

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” One of three amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery and establish civil and legal rights for black Americans, it would become the basis for many landmark Supreme Court decisions over the years.

I have a pretty good idea the founding fathers never envisioned people randomly killing unborn babies.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

I have a pretty good idea the founding fathers never envisioned people randomly killing unborn babies.
Point taken.

Thank you one and all for the very interesting opinions and thoughts on the matter. I will take some time later in the day to respond to individual questions.

Yes, I want to stay non - partisan but obviously I Just cant hold back sometimes (lol). but that being said, I am open to arguments both FOR and AGAINST.

Great work so far guys!
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

I have a pretty good idea the founding fathers never envisioned people randomly killing unborn babies.

They never imagined the sheer scale of unwanted teenage pregnancies we have today.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

So you then would be all for prostitution, and for a person selling their own organs for money? In addition you would be for no incarceration of criminals because it denies them domain over their own body in that they are not free to move about. Going back to the required service in the military, the country could not draft young men or women to serve in the military because they would have to risk their lives possibly against their will. Again losing complete domain over their own body.

No individual right is an absolute, Integrity.... Government can pass laws that infringe upon an individual's rights. Any State or Federal laws restricting prostitution, organ donation, conscription, access to abortion (all of which we'd be perfectly within our rights to do absent laws restricting them) must be judged by the appropriate standard of judicial review. Of the four instances, a challenge to conscription would have the lowest legal threshhold to meet (in this case, Intermediate Scrutiny) because Congress has a countervailing Constitutional power under Article I §8 "To raise and support armies...". Any laws restricting the other 3 would necessarily be subject to the higher standards of Strict Scrutiny.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade


Thank you for linking the article.

I found this clip to be most astounding:

This passage has no obvious or even subtle connection to legalized abortion (in fact, abortion laws were being tightened in the 19th century when the amendment passed). No matter. According to Blackmun, abortion is so central to liberty that no restriction on it can stand constitutional scrutiny.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

I have a pretty good idea the founding fathers never envisioned people randomly killing unborn babies.

Maybe not... but perhaps originalism might be a credible way to interpret the Constitution if the self-professed "originalists" themselves could provide a means by which the unenumerated rights of the 9th Amendment could be discovered.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

The key word there is " born". A fetus is not born. A woman coming to an age of being able to birth a child has been born and has rights. That which grows within her has no such rights.

I must admit, I am a strong advocate for protecting the rights of the unborn. Or "subhumans" as abortionist enthusiasts call them.

How do you think the Declaration of Independace fits into this debate, if at all?

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

In my opinion, this means, every person (born or unborn) as the right to LIFE
This is an unalienable right given to you and me and every other human (born or unborn) by God from the moment of conception. In my opinion, to interfere with LIFE in any form, or as such in the case of abortion, is a direct violation of this unalienable right and therefore an offence in Gods eyes.

Thoughts?
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

1.) I must admit, I am a strong advocate for protecting the rights of the unborn.
2.) Or "subhumans" as abortionist enthusiasts call them.
3.)How do you think the Declaration of Independence fits into this debate, if at all?

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

4.) In my opinion, this means, every person (born or unborn) as the right to LIFE
5.) This is an unalienable right given to you and me and every other human (born or unborn) by God from the moment of conception.
6.) In my opinion, to interfere with LIFE in any form, or as such in the case of abortion, is a direct violation of this unalienable right
7.) and therefore an offence in Gods eyes.
8.) Thoughts?


this is gonna be fun
1.) what rights of the unborn? list them, please
2.) what's an abortionist enthusiast and can you quote one fo them calling a ZEF subhuman for context
3.) its one of the reason i want womans legal rights protected
4.) dont see how it applies to unborn but say it did .. then what about the woman. cant give them both the equal right to life, its factually impossible. One will always lose
5.) again what about the woman and at conception would be insane and completely illogical since many ZEFS abort naturally
6.) you mean YOUR god which is meaningless and you mean any form except the womans since you seem to ignore hers
7.) whats your subjective feeling of what is an offense to god doesnt matter legally
8.) ill stick with mainly protecting the rights of the woman like the majority of other first world countries with rights and freedoms
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

I must admit, I am a strong advocate for protecting the rights of the unborn. Or "subhumans" as abortionist enthusiasts call them.....
Thoughts?

I'm sorry... I thought you started this thread with the intention of having a legal debate on the constitutional merits of the abortion issue?

If you just wanted to put up pics of Trump and engage in emotional mud-throwing, then why didn't you start this in the Abortion forum?
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

No individual right is an absolute, Integrity.... Government can pass laws that infringe upon an individual's rights. Any State or Federal laws restricting prostitution, organ donation, conscription, access to abortion (all of which we'd be perfectly within our rights to do absent laws restricting them) must be judged by the appropriate standard of judicial review. Of the four instances, a challenge to conscription would have the lowest legal threshhold to meet (in this case, Intermediate Scrutiny) because Congress has a countervailing Constitutional power under Article I §8 "To raise and support armies...". Any laws restricting the other 3 would necessarily be subject to the higher standards of Strict Scrutiny.

Individual rights are what the government lets us have.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Sorry but you haven't given any basis or proof that a fetus isn't a person. I'll go first:

Why is it okay to kill a fetus that is developed enough to survive on it's own?

You mean viability? No that's illegal.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Individual rights are what the government lets us have.

I see them more as open range. The land - like rights - always existed... but then we showed up and started fencing off different sections of land. On one hand, those fences give you clear title to your land.... but on the other, they show you it's limits. Fences or no, though, the land is always going to be there.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

I see them more as open range. The land - like rights - always existed... but then we showed up and started fencing off different sections of land. On one hand, those fences give you clear title to your land.... but on the other, they show you it's limits. Fences or no, though, the land is always going to be there.

Yeah I've debated this before - some say that man is born with "natural rights" without specifying a comprehensive list.

This is entirely philosophical - you can believe you have a right to something that your government denies you.


For me rights are what you can exercise.
If you don't have it, it doesn't exist.
You only have what your government / laws allows you to have.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Yeah I've debated this before - some say that man is born with "natural rights" without specifying a comprehensive list.

This is entirely philosophical - you can believe you have a right to something that your government denies you.


For me rights are what you can exercise.
If you don't have it, it doesn't exist.
You only have what your government / laws allows you to have.

Hence the importance of the Courts and the concept of judicial review.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

I'm sorry... I thought you started this thread with the intention of having a legal debate on the constitutional merits of the abortion issue?

If you just wanted to put up pics of Trump and engage in emotional mud-throwing, then why didn't you start this in the Abortion forum?

Everyone has an opinion, myself included. With a username like "nevertrump" or whatever it was, I had to say something.

But going forward I want to hear from both sides.

My mind is open for second opinion and I am open to arguments and opinions. I value your input here, believe it or not.

So, please help us stay on track and give me your honest opinion about the merits of Roe V Wade
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Everyone has an opinion, myself included. With a username like "nevertrump" or whatever it was, I had to say something.

But going forward I want to hear from both sides.

My mind is open for second opinion and I am open to arguments and opinions. I value your input here, believe it or not.

So, please help us stay on track and give me your honest opinion about the merits of Roe V Wade

I already did. It was the 6th post in this thread.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Hence the importance of the Courts and the concept of judicial review.

True but they can still only guarantee you the rights laid down by law (and the Constitution is a collection of laws - the highest in the land but a collection of laws none-the-less)
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

True but they can still only guarantee you the rights laid down by law (and the Constitution is a collection of laws - the highest in the land but a collection of laws none-the-less)

Hence the 9th Amendment. Terra Incognita.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

this is gonna be fun
1.) what rights of the unborn? list them, please
2.) what's an abortionist enthusiast and can you quote one fo them calling a ZEF subhuman for context
3.) its one of the reason i want womans legal rights protected
4.) dont see how it applies to unborn but say it did .. then what about the woman. cant give them both the equal right to life, its factually impossible. One will always lose
5.) again what about the woman and at conception would be insane and completely illogical since many ZEFS abort naturally
6.) you mean YOUR god which is meaningless and you mean any form except the womans since you seem to ignore hers
7.) whats your subjective feeling of what is an offense to god doesnt matter legally
8.) ill stick with mainly protecting the rights of the woman like the majority of other first world countries with rights and freedoms

Thank you for the questions, I do appreciate your reply. However, we need to stay on point and keep this in the framework of the constitution. I will not respond again for any further clarification, so hopefully this answers most of your questions.

The rights of the unborn? They have the right to be aborted, that's for sure. Although, if we flip roles, that's not a "right" that's definite suppression, the unborn baby might as well have been born into communism. No, subhuman fetuses do not have the right to LIFE so clearly stated in our declaration of independence. Unborn babies have the right to be exploited by abortion clinics?! Their body parts sold to the highest bidder. They have the right to be thrown out like ordinary trash?

What does ZEF stand for? Seems like just another dehumanizing term to me. Another cold blooded term ascribed by cold blooded people, if you will.

An abortionist Enthusiast, as far as I am concerned, is anyone who advocates strongly and diligently for positive promotion, for the practices of abortion, the procedures of abortion, for the morality of abortion, for the so called "positive" impact abortion has on the community, for the so called positive impact abortion has on society, for the general furtherment of abortion and abortion rights, and one who advocates strongly for the advancement of these said rights under any and all circumstances, and one who holds a blatant disregard for the life of the unborn baby (and that last part, obviously, goes without saying)

As for the term "sub-human" yes, I have heard it used in multiple abortion contexts, so I think it accurately describes these so called "Abortionist Enthusiasts" point of view or their general perspective on a dead fetus / dying fetus / live fetus. And the perspective of many who support abortion, in general. The fetus is considered sub human.

An offense to God is any matter of sin. There are small offenses and there are large offenses. i.e. There are varying degrees of sin. Just like there are varying degrees of criminal offenses. Same idea, just a higher court. I can assure you, you do not want to be an accessory to murder in Gods court.

You say you will stick to protecting the rights of women and you almost sound like they are under attack? Like the miracle of birth, is actually some type of insidious poison that invades the mothers body, like the fetus is almost... well, subhuman. You are failing to identify the miracle of birth and also fail to identify the sanctity of life.

Thanks for your time and have a great rest of your day. Lets please get back to the Constitutional argument. Thank you!!!
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

I agree with the decision. If a woman doesn't have domain over her own body, then what rights does she have? I see it as more a 9th Amendment question than a 14th Amendment one... women have a right to privacy consistent with Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965) (see especially Justice Goldberg's concurrence).

The only time I see a potential 14th Amendment anti-abortion argument is only when the fetus reaches the point of viability at roughly the end of the second trimester, consistent with Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe. But even here, the life and/or health of the mother must take precedence over any hypothetical rights of the fetus.

I personally view the whole "domain over body" thing as selfish. There is a race of people here, women are apart of something much bigger than just themselves. The procreation of the species has no bearing on your opinion here? There are things women cannot do with their body, and its not the end of the world. Prostitution, for example, is an activity that is illegal for women to participate in. There is a certain human protocol and within that protocol is the miracle of birth. Birth is a natural part of life. It should be protected and honored. Not desecrated and despised. As far as I am concerned. But I appreciate your opinion, it is valued!

EDIT: IM getting off track again. Lets try to stay on point with the 14th amendment legal discussion.
 
Back
Top Bottom