20 week Abortion act Passes House of Reps.

[Lumpy 1]

14 weeks ... looks pretty human and innocent, not a monster at all...Even in the way (34 yrs.) back in 1973 the Roe vs Wade decision abortion was to be completed within the first trimester... Obviously the lack of humanity and blood lust of the liberals has only grown since then even with far more scientific facts and studies. The decisions are/were political ... humanity, science, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution aren't included.



.

 

[jc456]

well at least you call it a child. which means it is alive. I believe in the death penalty. I feel that if a human has no respect for other humans and takes their life, that person forfeits his/ her life. seem fair? I believe that person is a walking birth defect.

Should a woman pregnant with a child diagnosed with such severe birth defects it will die at birth be forced to carry it to term against her will?

So, what is the difference exactly?

Between what?

Killing it or waiting until the end of the pregnancy?

Carrying a baby that is for all intents and purposes "dead" for an extra 3 or 4 or 5 months is a big difference. Pregnancy isnt exactly fun.

so, do you want to pay for cab rides home for all the folks out drinking so there are no more drunk drivers on the road? Shit, if we have to pay for women enjoying sex, then you should pay for us who like to go out and drink. the consequences are far worse.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Did any of you religious right wing nutfuckers go to this??

Anti-Choice Leaders Join Dominionist Rally In DC, Pray For ‘Massive Shift’ On Supreme Court | Right Wing Watch

On Monday, dominionist preacher Lou Engle convened Rise Up, the latest in his series of political prayer rallies organized under the banner of “The Call,” on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The rally, which capped off a weekend of evangelical activities, drew nothing close to the crowd that Engle had been hoping for. But it did draw, in addition to Engle’s fellow members of the Trump-supporting apostolic network POTUS Shield like “prophet” Cindy Jacobs and anti-abortion activist Alveda King, anti-choice movement leaders like Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America, and Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List.

 

[Coyote]

Should a woman pregnant with a child diagnosed with such severe birth defects it will die at birth be forced to carry it to term against her will?

So, what is the difference exactly?

Between what?

Killing it or waiting until the end of the pregnancy?

Carrying a baby that is for all intents and purposes "dead" for an extra 3 or 4 or 5 months is a big difference. Pregnancy isnt exactly fun.

so, do you want to pay for cab rides home for all the folks out drinking so there are no more drunk drivers on the road? Shit, if we have to pay for women enjoying sex, then you should pay for us who like to go out and drink. the consequences are far worse.

None of that is relevent to what i said on so many levels.

 

[Chuz Life]

So you require child persons to live too long and develop past some arbitrarily decided point where after which you can no longer deny they are persons.

Got it.

If you can find reason to deny them, they ain't persons.

To you.

Arbitrary? What makes your decided point any less arbitrary than any other?

Let's see. First there is the scientific fact that we human beings do not reproduce by metamorphosis like frogs and butterflies do. That is, we don't reproduce by breeding to create one organism that later morphs into another. Science has determined that in human beings (all mammals, actually) our young is the same organism throughout each individual's lifespan. Likewise, scientists have determined that "aging" begins at conception too. So, one field of science actually confirms and supports the conclusions drawn by the other.

Secondly, we have legal determinations like our fetal homicide laws, laws against patents on human beings (embryos) etc. That define and recognize "children in the wombs" as human beings and children, already. Those laws do not say "it's a child in the womb UNLESS the mom wants to abort." They say that it's a "child in the womb" and a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act BUT, we are going to give women a free pass if they don't want it.

Thirdly and also legally, the legal definition for what a natural person is is simply "a human being" and "a human being" in ANY stage of their development certainly meets that criteria.

Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." I just provided scientific and legal systems that support my reasoning. Have you? Can you provide a legal source that says that brainwaves are actually a scientific or legal requirement for human "personhood?"

I didn't come to the conclusion that the human brain is what makes for a person, different from other animals, by picking the idea out of a hat. The sense of self; I think, therefore I am; the ability to live by more than just instinct; these things make us more than just another animal.

You might not have picked that thought out of a hat. . . but the conclusions you draw from it is never the less 'arbitrary.' Because, among other things, you completely ignore the relevance of court cases involving children born with absolutely NO capacity for thoughts, feelings or the ability to see, hear or feel pain. . . where the courts recognize those children as having the same right to the protections of our laws that any other human being has.

Go further, and look at the wording of the constitution, and the unborn are not mentioned. The born are, as in the example of natural-born citizen; the authors of our constitution don't seem to have felt a need to make sure fetuses were granted constitutional protections or status as persons. In fact, from what I've read, abortion was legal at the time of the founding of the country.

From a legal, constitutional standpoint, as well as a personal one, a fetus in early pregnancy is not a person. You clearly disagree, but that doesn't mean that definition of person is an arbitrary one.

The Constitution mentions birth only to establish citizenship. Not Personhood. It is ludicrous to suggest that the framers of the Constitution would deny that children in womb are human beings/ persons today. . given the knowledge and images we have today (that THEY didn't have) such as 3d ultrasounds, genetics, etc.

 

[Montrovant]

So you require child persons to live too long and develop past some arbitrarily decided point where after which you can no longer deny they are persons.

Got it.

If you can find reason to deny them, they ain't persons.

To you.

Arbitrary? What makes your decided point any less arbitrary than any other?

Let's see. First there is the scientific fact that we human beings do not reproduce by metamorphosis like frogs and butterflies do. That is, we don't reproduce by breeding to create one organism that later morphs into another. Science has determined that in human beings (all mammals, actually) our young is the same organism throughout each individual's lifespan. Likewise, scientists have determined that "aging" begins at conception too. So, one field of science actually confirms and supports the conclusions drawn by the other.

Secondly, we have legal determinations like our fetal homicide laws, laws against patents on human beings (embryos) etc. That define and recognize "children in the wombs" as human beings and children, already. Those laws do not say "it's a child in the womb UNLESS the mom wants to abort." They say that it's a "child in the womb" and a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act BUT, we are going to give women a free pass if they don't want it.

Thirdly and also legally, the legal definition for what a natural person is is simply "a human being" and "a human being" in ANY stage of their development certainly meets that criteria.

Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." I just provided scientific and legal systems that support my reasoning. Have you? Can you provide a legal source that says that brainwaves are actually a scientific or legal requirement for human "personhood?"

I didn't come to the conclusion that the human brain is what makes for a person, different from other animals, by picking the idea out of a hat. The sense of self; I think, therefore I am; the ability to live by more than just instinct; these things make us more than just another animal.

You might not have picked that thought out of a hat. . . but the conclusions you draw from it is never the less 'arbitrary.' Because, among other things, you completely ignore the relevance of court cases involving children born with absolutely NO capacity for thoughts, feelings or the ability to see, hear or feel pain. . . where the courts recognize those children as having the same right to the protections of our laws that any other human being has.

Go further, and look at the wording of the constitution, and the unborn are not mentioned. The born are, as in the example of natural-born citizen; the authors of our constitution don't seem to have felt a need to make sure fetuses were granted constitutional protections or status as persons. In fact, from what I've read, abortion was legal at the time of the founding of the country.

From a legal, constitutional standpoint, as well as a personal one, a fetus in early pregnancy is not a person. You clearly disagree, but that doesn't mean that definition of person is an arbitrary one.

The Constitution mentions birth only to establish citizenship. Not Personhood. It is ludicrous to suggest that the framers of the Constitution would deny that children in womb are human beings/ persons today. . given the knowledge and images we have today (that THEY didn't have) such as 3d ultrasounds, genetics, etc.

You seem incapable of accepting a difference between a person, particularly in the context of the constitution, and a human being. They are not necessarily exact synonyms.

I have gone over and over the fact that the courts, including the Supreme Court, consider things such as fetal homicide laws perfectly acceptable while still maintaining the Roe v Wade ruling; the judicial system of this country sees a difference between a statute calling a fetus a person and a person in the context of the 14th amendment.

My conclusions regarding the brain being responsible for making a person are not arbitrary. They are, in fact, based in large part of the current human understanding of anatomy and physiology. The brain is the organ which is responsible for our thoughts. Without the brain, there is no thought. Consider personality; without thought the person in personality does not exist. Again, you may disagree with my view, but that does not make it arbitrary.

I also seem to have a stronger grasp of the legal view of the term person than you do. Yes, certain fetal homicide laws, or other statutes, may define a fetus as a person. That does not mean that a fetus is a person in the context of the 14th amendment, or any other part of the constitution, however. Legally, a corporation can be a person, yet it is not covered by all of the protections granted persons in the constitution. So legally, my view has just as much validity as yours, and once again, is far from arbitrary.

There is also the medical side. As far as I know, when the brain dies, there is a nearly universal belief in the medical community that a person is dead. The body's other organs might be kept functioning mechanically, but the person is considered to be dead. This is accepted both medically and, I believe, legally. So again, tying the brain to what makes a person a person is not arbitrary.

You have no idea what the framers of the constitution would believe about when someone gains constitutional protections today, nor do I.

I'm not sure what the ability to see or hear has to do with what I've said. I didn't mention anything about those senses. I also don't know what cases you are talking about, so I cannot comment on them.

I will happily admit to there being a great deal of gray area on this subject. Look at something such as the Terri Shiavo case; was the essential person still alive, or was it nothing but a shell that used to hold that person? How exactly can we know whether or not someone still has the capacity for thought given our current understanding of brain function and ability to observe that function? I am neither an expert nor do I believe I know the answers to all possible questions regarding what makes a person a person. I believe without reservation, however, that if my brain were able to be removed and destroyed, yet the rest of my body kept functioning through mechanical means, that I would be dead; the body being kept functioning would not be me, would not be the person I am.

I do not deny that some statutes make a fetus a legal person. They do not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution, however.

I accept that you consider a person to be a person from the moment of conception (at least, that is what I gather from your posts). I know that many others agree with that opinion. However, that also does not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution.

Legally, a fetus can both be a person and not be a person. The law is like that.

You disagree with the way I personally define what is a person. That does not make my reasoning arbitrary, just something you consider to be wrong.

 

[Chuz Life]

So you require child persons to live too long and develop past some arbitrarily decided point where after which you can no longer deny they are persons.

Got it.

If you can find reason to deny them, they ain't persons.

To you.

Arbitrary? What makes your decided point any less arbitrary than any other?

Let's see. First there is the scientific fact that we human beings do not reproduce by metamorphosis like frogs and butterflies do. That is, we don't reproduce by breeding to create one organism that later morphs into another. Science has determined that in human beings (all mammals, actually) our young is the same organism throughout each individual's lifespan. Likewise, scientists have determined that "aging" begins at conception too. So, one field of science actually confirms and supports the conclusions drawn by the other.

Secondly, we have legal determinations like our fetal homicide laws, laws against patents on human beings (embryos) etc. That define and recognize "children in the wombs" as human beings and children, already. Those laws do not say "it's a child in the womb UNLESS the mom wants to abort." They say that it's a "child in the womb" and a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act BUT, we are going to give women a free pass if they don't want it.

Thirdly and also legally, the legal definition for what a natural person is is simply "a human being" and "a human being" in ANY stage of their development certainly meets that criteria.

Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." I just provided scientific and legal systems that support my reasoning. Have you? Can you provide a legal source that says that brainwaves are actually a scientific or legal requirement for human "personhood?"

I didn't come to the conclusion that the human brain is what makes for a person, different from other animals, by picking the idea out of a hat. The sense of self; I think, therefore I am; the ability to live by more than just instinct; these things make us more than just another animal.

You might not have picked that thought out of a hat. . . but the conclusions you draw from it is never the less 'arbitrary.' Because, among other things, you completely ignore the relevance of court cases involving children born with absolutely NO capacity for thoughts, feelings or the ability to see, hear or feel pain. . . where the courts recognize those children as having the same right to the protections of our laws that any other human being has.

Go further, and look at the wording of the constitution, and the unborn are not mentioned. The born are, as in the example of natural-born citizen; the authors of our constitution don't seem to have felt a need to make sure fetuses were granted constitutional protections or status as persons. In fact, from what I've read, abortion was legal at the time of the founding of the country.

From a legal, constitutional standpoint, as well as a personal one, a fetus in early pregnancy is not a person. You clearly disagree, but that doesn't mean that definition of person is an arbitrary one.

The Constitution mentions birth only to establish citizenship. Not Personhood. It is ludicrous to suggest that the framers of the Constitution would deny that children in womb are human beings/ persons today. . given the knowledge and images we have today (that THEY didn't have) such as 3d ultrasounds, genetics, etc.

You seem incapable of accepting a difference between a person, particularly in the context of the constitution, and a human being. They are not necessarily exact synonyms.

I have gone over and over the fact that the courts, including the Supreme Court, consider things such as fetal homicide laws perfectly acceptable while still maintaining the Roe v Wade ruling; the judicial system of this country sees a difference between a statute calling a fetus a person and a person in the context of the 14th amendment.

My conclusions regarding the brain being responsible for making a person are not arbitrary. They are, in fact, based in large part of the current human understanding of anatomy and physiology. The brain is the organ which is responsible for our thoughts. Without the brain, there is no thought. Consider personality; without thought the person in personality does not exist. Again, you may disagree with my view, but that does not make it arbitrary.

I also seem to have a stronger grasp of the legal view of the term person than you do. Yes, certain fetal homicide laws, or other statutes, may define a fetus as a person. That does not mean that a fetus is a person in the context of the 14th amendment, or any other part of the constitution, however. Legally, a corporation can be a person, yet it is not covered by all of the protections granted persons in the constitution. So legally, my view has just as much validity as yours, and once again, is far from arbitrary.

There is also the medical side. As far as I know, when the brain dies, there is a nearly universal belief in the medical community that a person is dead. The body's other organs might be kept functioning mechanically, but the person is considered to be dead. This is accepted both medically and, I believe, legally. So again, tying the brain to what makes a person a person is not arbitrary.

You have no idea what the framers of the constitution would believe about when someone gains constitutional protections today, nor do I.

I'm not sure what the ability to see or hear has to do with what I've said. I didn't mention anything about those senses. I also don't know what cases you are talking about, so I cannot comment on them.

I will happily admit to there being a great deal of gray area on this subject. Look at something such as the Terri Shiavo case; was the essential person still alive, or was it nothing but a shell that used to hold that person? How exactly can we know whether or not someone still has the capacity for thought given our current understanding of brain function and ability to observe that function? I am neither an expert nor do I believe I know the answers to all possible questions regarding what makes a person a person. I believe without reservation, however, that if my brain were able to be removed and destroyed, yet the rest of my body kept functioning through mechanical means, that I would be dead; the body being kept functioning would not be me, would not be the person I am.

I do not deny that some statutes make a fetus a legal person. They do not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution, however.

I accept that you consider a person to be a person from the moment of conception (at least, that is what I gather from your posts). I know that many others agree with that opinion. However, that also does not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution.

Legally, a fetus can both be a person and not be a person. The law is like that.

You disagree with the way I personally define what is a person. That does not make my reasoning arbitrary, just something you consider to be wrong.

There is no way to answer a post that long - point by point - on this pos phone of mine.

Suffice it to say, that when a child in the womb is already legally recognized as a person enough to have their killers charged with MURDER? That's person enough for me.

Edit; As for your claim that the government can have it both way and have the child be recognized as a person in one situation but deny their personhood in another? I can't disagree more. If the government can do that with the rights of a child in the womb. . . They could do the same to you. Or me. Or to anyone else in any other situations where the government sees fit.

 

[Faun]

So you require child persons to live too long and develop past some arbitrarily decided point where after which you can no longer deny they are persons.

Got it.

If you can find reason to deny them, they ain't persons.

To you.

Arbitrary? What makes your decided point any less arbitrary than any other?

Let's see. First there is the scientific fact that we human beings do not reproduce by metamorphosis like frogs and butterflies do. That is, we don't reproduce by breeding to create one organism that later morphs into another. Science has determined that in human beings (all mammals, actually) our young is the same organism throughout each individual's lifespan. Likewise, scientists have determined that "aging" begins at conception too. So, one field of science actually confirms and supports the conclusions drawn by the other.

Secondly, we have legal determinations like our fetal homicide laws, laws against patents on human beings (embryos) etc. That define and recognize "children in the wombs" as human beings and children, already. Those laws do not say "it's a child in the womb UNLESS the mom wants to abort." They say that it's a "child in the womb" and a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act BUT, we are going to give women a free pass if they don't want it.

Thirdly and also legally, the legal definition for what a natural person is is simply "a human being" and "a human being" in ANY stage of their development certainly meets that criteria.

Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." I just provided scientific and legal systems that support my reasoning. Have you? Can you provide a legal source that says that brainwaves are actually a scientific or legal requirement for human "personhood?"

I didn't come to the conclusion that the human brain is what makes for a person, different from other animals, by picking the idea out of a hat. The sense of self; I think, therefore I am; the ability to live by more than just instinct; these things make us more than just another animal.

You might not have picked that thought out of a hat. . . but the conclusions you draw from it is never the less 'arbitrary.' Because, among other things, you completely ignore the relevance of court cases involving children born with absolutely NO capacity for thoughts, feelings or the ability to see, hear or feel pain. . . where the courts recognize those children as having the same right to the protections of our laws that any other human being has.

Go further, and look at the wording of the constitution, and the unborn are not mentioned. The born are, as in the example of natural-born citizen; the authors of our constitution don't seem to have felt a need to make sure fetuses were granted constitutional protections or status as persons. In fact, from what I've read, abortion was legal at the time of the founding of the country.

From a legal, constitutional standpoint, as well as a personal one, a fetus in early pregnancy is not a person. You clearly disagree, but that doesn't mean that definition of person is an arbitrary one.

The Constitution mentions birth only to establish citizenship. Not Personhood. It is ludicrous to suggest that the framers of the Constitution would deny that children in womb are human beings/ persons today. . given the knowledge and images we have today (that THEY didn't have) such as 3d ultrasounds, genetics, etc.

You seem incapable of accepting a difference between a person, particularly in the context of the constitution, and a human being. They are not necessarily exact synonyms.

I have gone over and over the fact that the courts, including the Supreme Court, consider things such as fetal homicide laws perfectly acceptable while still maintaining the Roe v Wade ruling; the judicial system of this country sees a difference between a statute calling a fetus a person and a person in the context of the 14th amendment.

My conclusions regarding the brain being responsible for making a person are not arbitrary. They are, in fact, based in large part of the current human understanding of anatomy and physiology. The brain is the organ which is responsible for our thoughts. Without the brain, there is no thought. Consider personality; without thought the person in personality does not exist. Again, you may disagree with my view, but that does not make it arbitrary.

I also seem to have a stronger grasp of the legal view of the term person than you do. Yes, certain fetal homicide laws, or other statutes, may define a fetus as a person. That does not mean that a fetus is a person in the context of the 14th amendment, or any other part of the constitution, however. Legally, a corporation can be a person, yet it is not covered by all of the protections granted persons in the constitution. So legally, my view has just as much validity as yours, and once again, is far from arbitrary.

There is also the medical side. As far as I know, when the brain dies, there is a nearly universal belief in the medical community that a person is dead. The body's other organs might be kept functioning mechanically, but the person is considered to be dead. This is accepted both medically and, I believe, legally. So again, tying the brain to what makes a person a person is not arbitrary.

You have no idea what the framers of the constitution would believe about when someone gains constitutional protections today, nor do I.

I'm not sure what the ability to see or hear has to do with what I've said. I didn't mention anything about those senses. I also don't know what cases you are talking about, so I cannot comment on them.

I will happily admit to there being a great deal of gray area on this subject. Look at something such as the Terri Shiavo case; was the essential person still alive, or was it nothing but a shell that used to hold that person? How exactly can we know whether or not someone still has the capacity for thought given our current understanding of brain function and ability to observe that function? I am neither an expert nor do I believe I know the answers to all possible questions regarding what makes a person a person. I believe without reservation, however, that if my brain were able to be removed and destroyed, yet the rest of my body kept functioning through mechanical means, that I would be dead; the body being kept functioning would not be me, would not be the person I am.

I do not deny that some statutes make a fetus a legal person. They do not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution, however.

I accept that you consider a person to be a person from the moment of conception (at least, that is what I gather from your posts). I know that many others agree with that opinion. However, that also does not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution.

Legally, a fetus can both be a person and not be a person. The law is like that.

You disagree with the way I personally define what is a person. That does not make my reasoning arbitrary, just something you consider to be wrong.

There is no way to answer a post that long - point by point - on this pos phone of mine.

Suffice it to say, that when a child in the womb is already legally recognized as a person enough to have their killers charged with MURDER? That's person enough for me.

Edit; As for your claim that the government can have it both way and have the child be recognized as a person in one situation but deny their personhood in another? I can't disagree more. If the government can do that with the rights of a child in the womb. . . They could do the same to you. Or me. Or to anyone else in any other situations where the government sees fit.

Depends on the state. As you’ve been shown, in some states, such convictions are for killing a fetus, not a person.

 

[Montrovant]

So you require child persons to live too long and develop past some arbitrarily decided point where after which you can no longer deny they are persons.

Got it.

If you can find reason to deny them, they ain't persons.

To you.

Arbitrary? What makes your decided point any less arbitrary than any other?

Let's see. First there is the scientific fact that we human beings do not reproduce by metamorphosis like frogs and butterflies do. That is, we don't reproduce by breeding to create one organism that later morphs into another. Science has determined that in human beings (all mammals, actually) our young is the same organism throughout each individual's lifespan. Likewise, scientists have determined that "aging" begins at conception too. So, one field of science actually confirms and supports the conclusions drawn by the other.

Secondly, we have legal determinations like our fetal homicide laws, laws against patents on human beings (embryos) etc. That define and recognize "children in the wombs" as human beings and children, already. Those laws do not say "it's a child in the womb UNLESS the mom wants to abort." They say that it's a "child in the womb" and a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act BUT, we are going to give women a free pass if they don't want it.

Thirdly and also legally, the legal definition for what a natural person is is simply "a human being" and "a human being" in ANY stage of their development certainly meets that criteria.

Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." I just provided scientific and legal systems that support my reasoning. Have you? Can you provide a legal source that says that brainwaves are actually a scientific or legal requirement for human "personhood?"

I didn't come to the conclusion that the human brain is what makes for a person, different from other animals, by picking the idea out of a hat. The sense of self; I think, therefore I am; the ability to live by more than just instinct; these things make us more than just another animal.

You might not have picked that thought out of a hat. . . but the conclusions you draw from it is never the less 'arbitrary.' Because, among other things, you completely ignore the relevance of court cases involving children born with absolutely NO capacity for thoughts, feelings or the ability to see, hear or feel pain. . . where the courts recognize those children as having the same right to the protections of our laws that any other human being has.

Go further, and look at the wording of the constitution, and the unborn are not mentioned. The born are, as in the example of natural-born citizen; the authors of our constitution don't seem to have felt a need to make sure fetuses were granted constitutional protections or status as persons. In fact, from what I've read, abortion was legal at the time of the founding of the country.

From a legal, constitutional standpoint, as well as a personal one, a fetus in early pregnancy is not a person. You clearly disagree, but that doesn't mean that definition of person is an arbitrary one.

The Constitution mentions birth only to establish citizenship. Not Personhood. It is ludicrous to suggest that the framers of the Constitution would deny that children in womb are human beings/ persons today. . given the knowledge and images we have today (that THEY didn't have) such as 3d ultrasounds, genetics, etc.

You seem incapable of accepting a difference between a person, particularly in the context of the constitution, and a human being. They are not necessarily exact synonyms.

I have gone over and over the fact that the courts, including the Supreme Court, consider things such as fetal homicide laws perfectly acceptable while still maintaining the Roe v Wade ruling; the judicial system of this country sees a difference between a statute calling a fetus a person and a person in the context of the 14th amendment.

My conclusions regarding the brain being responsible for making a person are not arbitrary. They are, in fact, based in large part of the current human understanding of anatomy and physiology. The brain is the organ which is responsible for our thoughts. Without the brain, there is no thought. Consider personality; without thought the person in personality does not exist. Again, you may disagree with my view, but that does not make it arbitrary.

I also seem to have a stronger grasp of the legal view of the term person than you do. Yes, certain fetal homicide laws, or other statutes, may define a fetus as a person. That does not mean that a fetus is a person in the context of the 14th amendment, or any other part of the constitution, however. Legally, a corporation can be a person, yet it is not covered by all of the protections granted persons in the constitution. So legally, my view has just as much validity as yours, and once again, is far from arbitrary.

There is also the medical side. As far as I know, when the brain dies, there is a nearly universal belief in the medical community that a person is dead. The body's other organs might be kept functioning mechanically, but the person is considered to be dead. This is accepted both medically and, I believe, legally. So again, tying the brain to what makes a person a person is not arbitrary.

You have no idea what the framers of the constitution would believe about when someone gains constitutional protections today, nor do I.

I'm not sure what the ability to see or hear has to do with what I've said. I didn't mention anything about those senses. I also don't know what cases you are talking about, so I cannot comment on them.

I will happily admit to there being a great deal of gray area on this subject. Look at something such as the Terri Shiavo case; was the essential person still alive, or was it nothing but a shell that used to hold that person? How exactly can we know whether or not someone still has the capacity for thought given our current understanding of brain function and ability to observe that function? I am neither an expert nor do I believe I know the answers to all possible questions regarding what makes a person a person. I believe without reservation, however, that if my brain were able to be removed and destroyed, yet the rest of my body kept functioning through mechanical means, that I would be dead; the body being kept functioning would not be me, would not be the person I am.

I do not deny that some statutes make a fetus a legal person. They do not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution, however.

I accept that you consider a person to be a person from the moment of conception (at least, that is what I gather from your posts). I know that many others agree with that opinion. However, that also does not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution.

Legally, a fetus can both be a person and not be a person. The law is like that.

You disagree with the way I personally define what is a person. That does not make my reasoning arbitrary, just something you consider to be wrong.

There is no way to answer a post that long - point by point - on this pos phone of mine.

Suffice it to say, that when a child in the womb is already legally recognized as a person enough to have their killers charged with MURDER? That's person enough for me.

Edit; As for your claim that the government can have it both way and have the child be recognized as a person in one situation but deny their personhood in another? I can't disagree more. If the government can do that with the rights of a child in the womb. . . They could do the same to you. Or me. Or to anyone else in any other situations where the government sees fit.

The government already does have various entities count as a "person" in some contexts but not others. It feels like beating a dead horse, but a corporation can legally be a person. However, a corporation is not subject to the full range of constitutional protections because it does not always constitute a person.

And while I understand how that could be frustrating (the ideosynchrasies of law often frustrate me when I happen upon them), a desire to simplify the issue could backfire; if the courts felt the need to limit when something is considered a person, it's possible they could rule that a human is only a person after birth just as easily as from conception.

I find it exceedingly unlikely that abortion will be deemed unconstitutional any time soon. Much as this issue seems to be one with extreme views, I think compromise legislation such as that in the OP is probably the best those who oppose abortion can hope for right now.

 

[Chuz Life]

So you require child persons to live too long and develop past some arbitrarily decided point where after which you can no longer deny they are persons.

Got it.

If you can find reason to deny them, they ain't persons.

To you.

Arbitrary? What makes your decided point any less arbitrary than any other?

Let's see. First there is the scientific fact that we human beings do not reproduce by metamorphosis like frogs and butterflies do. That is, we don't reproduce by breeding to create one organism that later morphs into another. Science has determined that in human beings (all mammals, actually) our young is the same organism throughout each individual's lifespan. Likewise, scientists have determined that "aging" begins at conception too. So, one field of science actually confirms and supports the conclusions drawn by the other.

Secondly, we have legal determinations like our fetal homicide laws, laws against patents on human beings (embryos) etc. That define and recognize "children in the wombs" as human beings and children, already. Those laws do not say "it's a child in the womb UNLESS the mom wants to abort." They say that it's a "child in the womb" and a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act BUT, we are going to give women a free pass if they don't want it.

Thirdly and also legally, the legal definition for what a natural person is is simply "a human being" and "a human being" in ANY stage of their development certainly meets that criteria.

Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." I just provided scientific and legal systems that support my reasoning. Have you? Can you provide a legal source that says that brainwaves are actually a scientific or legal requirement for human "personhood?"

I didn't come to the conclusion that the human brain is what makes for a person, different from other animals, by picking the idea out of a hat. The sense of self; I think, therefore I am; the ability to live by more than just instinct; these things make us more than just another animal.

You might not have picked that thought out of a hat. . . but the conclusions you draw from it is never the less 'arbitrary.' Because, among other things, you completely ignore the relevance of court cases involving children born with absolutely NO capacity for thoughts, feelings or the ability to see, hear or feel pain. . . where the courts recognize those children as having the same right to the protections of our laws that any other human being has.

Go further, and look at the wording of the constitution, and the unborn are not mentioned. The born are, as in the example of natural-born citizen; the authors of our constitution don't seem to have felt a need to make sure fetuses were granted constitutional protections or status as persons. In fact, from what I've read, abortion was legal at the time of the founding of the country.

From a legal, constitutional standpoint, as well as a personal one, a fetus in early pregnancy is not a person. You clearly disagree, but that doesn't mean that definition of person is an arbitrary one.

The Constitution mentions birth only to establish citizenship. Not Personhood. It is ludicrous to suggest that the framers of the Constitution would deny that children in womb are human beings/ persons today. . given the knowledge and images we have today (that THEY didn't have) such as 3d ultrasounds, genetics, etc.

You seem incapable of accepting a difference between a person, particularly in the context of the constitution, and a human being. They are not necessarily exact synonyms.

I have gone over and over the fact that the courts, including the Supreme Court, consider things such as fetal homicide laws perfectly acceptable while still maintaining the Roe v Wade ruling; the judicial system of this country sees a difference between a statute calling a fetus a person and a person in the context of the 14th amendment.

My conclusions regarding the brain being responsible for making a person are not arbitrary. They are, in fact, based in large part of the current human understanding of anatomy and physiology. The brain is the organ which is responsible for our thoughts. Without the brain, there is no thought. Consider personality; without thought the person in personality does not exist. Again, you may disagree with my view, but that does not make it arbitrary.

I also seem to have a stronger grasp of the legal view of the term person than you do. Yes, certain fetal homicide laws, or other statutes, may define a fetus as a person. That does not mean that a fetus is a person in the context of the 14th amendment, or any other part of the constitution, however. Legally, a corporation can be a person, yet it is not covered by all of the protections granted persons in the constitution. So legally, my view has just as much validity as yours, and once again, is far from arbitrary.

There is also the medical side. As far as I know, when the brain dies, there is a nearly universal belief in the medical community that a person is dead. The body's other organs might be kept functioning mechanically, but the person is considered to be dead. This is accepted both medically and, I believe, legally. So again, tying the brain to what makes a person a person is not arbitrary.

You have no idea what the framers of the constitution would believe about when someone gains constitutional protections today, nor do I.

I'm not sure what the ability to see or hear has to do with what I've said. I didn't mention anything about those senses. I also don't know what cases you are talking about, so I cannot comment on them.

I will happily admit to there being a great deal of gray area on this subject. Look at something such as the Terri Shiavo case; was the essential person still alive, or was it nothing but a shell that used to hold that person? How exactly can we know whether or not someone still has the capacity for thought given our current understanding of brain function and ability to observe that function? I am neither an expert nor do I believe I know the answers to all possible questions regarding what makes a person a person. I believe without reservation, however, that if my brain were able to be removed and destroyed, yet the rest of my body kept functioning through mechanical means, that I would be dead; the body being kept functioning would not be me, would not be the person I am.

I do not deny that some statutes make a fetus a legal person. They do not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution, however.

I accept that you consider a person to be a person from the moment of conception (at least, that is what I gather from your posts). I know that many others agree with that opinion. However, that also does not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution.

Legally, a fetus can both be a person and not be a person. The law is like that.

You disagree with the way I personally define what is a person. That does not make my reasoning arbitrary, just something you consider to be wrong.

There is no way to answer a post that long - point by point - on this pos phone of mine.

Suffice it to say, that when a child in the womb is already legally recognized as a person enough to have their killers charged with MURDER? That's person enough for me.

Edit; As for your claim that the government can have it both way and have the child be recognized as a person in one situation but deny their personhood in another? I can't disagree more. If the government can do that with the rights of a child in the womb. . . They could do the same to you. Or me. Or to anyone else in any other situations where the government sees fit.

The government already does have various entities count as a "person" in some contexts but not others. It feels like beating a dead horse, but a corporation can legally be a person. However, a corporation is not subject to the full range of constitutional protections because it does not always constitute a person.

And while I understand how that could be frustrating (the ideosynchrasies of law often frustrate me when I happen upon them), a desire to simplify the issue could backfire; if the courts felt the need to limit when something is considered a person, it's possible they could rule that a human is only a person after birth just as easily as from conception.

I find it exceedingly unlikely that abortion will be deemed unconstitutional any time soon. Much as this issue seems to be one with extreme views, I think compromise legislation such as that in the OP is probably the best those who oppose abortion can hope for right now.

If the government can so easily have it both ways, as you claim. . .

Why then did they say this in the Roe v Wade decision;

IX
The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

 

[Faun]

Arbitrary? What makes your decided point any less arbitrary than any other?

Let's see. First there is the scientific fact that we human beings do not reproduce by metamorphosis like frogs and butterflies do. That is, we don't reproduce by breeding to create one organism that later morphs into another. Science has determined that in human beings (all mammals, actually) our young is the same organism throughout each individual's lifespan. Likewise, scientists have determined that "aging" begins at conception too. So, one field of science actually confirms and supports the conclusions drawn by the other.

Secondly, we have legal determinations like our fetal homicide laws, laws against patents on human beings (embryos) etc. That define and recognize "children in the wombs" as human beings and children, already. Those laws do not say "it's a child in the womb UNLESS the mom wants to abort." They say that it's a "child in the womb" and a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act BUT, we are going to give women a free pass if they don't want it.

Thirdly and also legally, the legal definition for what a natural person is is simply "a human being" and "a human being" in ANY stage of their development certainly meets that criteria.

Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." I just provided scientific and legal systems that support my reasoning. Have you? Can you provide a legal source that says that brainwaves are actually a scientific or legal requirement for human "personhood?"

I didn't come to the conclusion that the human brain is what makes for a person, different from other animals, by picking the idea out of a hat. The sense of self; I think, therefore I am; the ability to live by more than just instinct; these things make us more than just another animal.

You might not have picked that thought out of a hat. . . but the conclusions you draw from it is never the less 'arbitrary.' Because, among other things, you completely ignore the relevance of court cases involving children born with absolutely NO capacity for thoughts, feelings or the ability to see, hear or feel pain. . . where the courts recognize those children as having the same right to the protections of our laws that any other human being has.

Go further, and look at the wording of the constitution, and the unborn are not mentioned. The born are, as in the example of natural-born citizen; the authors of our constitution don't seem to have felt a need to make sure fetuses were granted constitutional protections or status as persons. In fact, from what I've read, abortion was legal at the time of the founding of the country.

From a legal, constitutional standpoint, as well as a personal one, a fetus in early pregnancy is not a person. You clearly disagree, but that doesn't mean that definition of person is an arbitrary one.

The Constitution mentions birth only to establish citizenship. Not Personhood. It is ludicrous to suggest that the framers of the Constitution would deny that children in womb are human beings/ persons today. . given the knowledge and images we have today (that THEY didn't have) such as 3d ultrasounds, genetics, etc.

You seem incapable of accepting a difference between a person, particularly in the context of the constitution, and a human being. They are not necessarily exact synonyms.

I have gone over and over the fact that the courts, including the Supreme Court, consider things such as fetal homicide laws perfectly acceptable while still maintaining the Roe v Wade ruling; the judicial system of this country sees a difference between a statute calling a fetus a person and a person in the context of the 14th amendment.

My conclusions regarding the brain being responsible for making a person are not arbitrary. They are, in fact, based in large part of the current human understanding of anatomy and physiology. The brain is the organ which is responsible for our thoughts. Without the brain, there is no thought. Consider personality; without thought the person in personality does not exist. Again, you may disagree with my view, but that does not make it arbitrary.

I also seem to have a stronger grasp of the legal view of the term person than you do. Yes, certain fetal homicide laws, or other statutes, may define a fetus as a person. That does not mean that a fetus is a person in the context of the 14th amendment, or any other part of the constitution, however. Legally, a corporation can be a person, yet it is not covered by all of the protections granted persons in the constitution. So legally, my view has just as much validity as yours, and once again, is far from arbitrary.

There is also the medical side. As far as I know, when the brain dies, there is a nearly universal belief in the medical community that a person is dead. The body's other organs might be kept functioning mechanically, but the person is considered to be dead. This is accepted both medically and, I believe, legally. So again, tying the brain to what makes a person a person is not arbitrary.

You have no idea what the framers of the constitution would believe about when someone gains constitutional protections today, nor do I.

I'm not sure what the ability to see or hear has to do with what I've said. I didn't mention anything about those senses. I also don't know what cases you are talking about, so I cannot comment on them.

I will happily admit to there being a great deal of gray area on this subject. Look at something such as the Terri Shiavo case; was the essential person still alive, or was it nothing but a shell that used to hold that person? How exactly can we know whether or not someone still has the capacity for thought given our current understanding of brain function and ability to observe that function? I am neither an expert nor do I believe I know the answers to all possible questions regarding what makes a person a person. I believe without reservation, however, that if my brain were able to be removed and destroyed, yet the rest of my body kept functioning through mechanical means, that I would be dead; the body being kept functioning would not be me, would not be the person I am.

I do not deny that some statutes make a fetus a legal person. They do not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution, however.

I accept that you consider a person to be a person from the moment of conception (at least, that is what I gather from your posts). I know that many others agree with that opinion. However, that also does not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution.

Legally, a fetus can both be a person and not be a person. The law is like that.

You disagree with the way I personally define what is a person. That does not make my reasoning arbitrary, just something you consider to be wrong.

There is no way to answer a post that long - point by point - on this pos phone of mine.

Suffice it to say, that when a child in the womb is already legally recognized as a person enough to have their killers charged with MURDER? That's person enough for me.

Edit; As for your claim that the government can have it both way and have the child be recognized as a person in one situation but deny their personhood in another? I can't disagree more. If the government can do that with the rights of a child in the womb. . . They could do the same to you. Or me. Or to anyone else in any other situations where the government sees fit.

The government already does have various entities count as a "person" in some contexts but not others. It feels like beating a dead horse, but a corporation can legally be a person. However, a corporation is not subject to the full range of constitutional protections because it does not always constitute a person.

And while I understand how that could be frustrating (the ideosynchrasies of law often frustrate me when I happen upon them), a desire to simplify the issue could backfire; if the courts felt the need to limit when something is considered a person, it's possible they could rule that a human is only a person after birth just as easily as from conception.

I find it exceedingly unlikely that abortion will be deemed unconstitutional any time soon. Much as this issue seems to be one with extreme views, I think compromise legislation such as that in the OP is probably the best those who oppose abortion can hope for right now.

If the government can so easily have it both ways, as you claim. . .

Why then did they say this in the Roe v Wade decision;

IX
The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

Great, so now explain how a fetus is a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment...

Is a fetus a citizen? Is a fetus counted to determine the number of representatives in Congress?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Passing the House is one thing, the crooked Senate is entirely another.

In b4 McCain votes against it.

5 months is more than halfway there, so I'm all for the bill.

 

[Montrovant]

Arbitrary? What makes your decided point any less arbitrary than any other?

Let's see. First there is the scientific fact that we human beings do not reproduce by metamorphosis like frogs and butterflies do. That is, we don't reproduce by breeding to create one organism that later morphs into another. Science has determined that in human beings (all mammals, actually) our young is the same organism throughout each individual's lifespan. Likewise, scientists have determined that "aging" begins at conception too. So, one field of science actually confirms and supports the conclusions drawn by the other.

Secondly, we have legal determinations like our fetal homicide laws, laws against patents on human beings (embryos) etc. That define and recognize "children in the wombs" as human beings and children, already. Those laws do not say "it's a child in the womb UNLESS the mom wants to abort." They say that it's a "child in the womb" and a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act BUT, we are going to give women a free pass if they don't want it.

Thirdly and also legally, the legal definition for what a natural person is is simply "a human being" and "a human being" in ANY stage of their development certainly meets that criteria.

Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." I just provided scientific and legal systems that support my reasoning. Have you? Can you provide a legal source that says that brainwaves are actually a scientific or legal requirement for human "personhood?"

I didn't come to the conclusion that the human brain is what makes for a person, different from other animals, by picking the idea out of a hat. The sense of self; I think, therefore I am; the ability to live by more than just instinct; these things make us more than just another animal.

You might not have picked that thought out of a hat. . . but the conclusions you draw from it is never the less 'arbitrary.' Because, among other things, you completely ignore the relevance of court cases involving children born with absolutely NO capacity for thoughts, feelings or the ability to see, hear or feel pain. . . where the courts recognize those children as having the same right to the protections of our laws that any other human being has.

Go further, and look at the wording of the constitution, and the unborn are not mentioned. The born are, as in the example of natural-born citizen; the authors of our constitution don't seem to have felt a need to make sure fetuses were granted constitutional protections or status as persons. In fact, from what I've read, abortion was legal at the time of the founding of the country.

From a legal, constitutional standpoint, as well as a personal one, a fetus in early pregnancy is not a person. You clearly disagree, but that doesn't mean that definition of person is an arbitrary one.

The Constitution mentions birth only to establish citizenship. Not Personhood. It is ludicrous to suggest that the framers of the Constitution would deny that children in womb are human beings/ persons today. . given the knowledge and images we have today (that THEY didn't have) such as 3d ultrasounds, genetics, etc.

You seem incapable of accepting a difference between a person, particularly in the context of the constitution, and a human being. They are not necessarily exact synonyms.

I have gone over and over the fact that the courts, including the Supreme Court, consider things such as fetal homicide laws perfectly acceptable while still maintaining the Roe v Wade ruling; the judicial system of this country sees a difference between a statute calling a fetus a person and a person in the context of the 14th amendment.

My conclusions regarding the brain being responsible for making a person are not arbitrary. They are, in fact, based in large part of the current human understanding of anatomy and physiology. The brain is the organ which is responsible for our thoughts. Without the brain, there is no thought. Consider personality; without thought the person in personality does not exist. Again, you may disagree with my view, but that does not make it arbitrary.

I also seem to have a stronger grasp of the legal view of the term person than you do. Yes, certain fetal homicide laws, or other statutes, may define a fetus as a person. That does not mean that a fetus is a person in the context of the 14th amendment, or any other part of the constitution, however. Legally, a corporation can be a person, yet it is not covered by all of the protections granted persons in the constitution. So legally, my view has just as much validity as yours, and once again, is far from arbitrary.

There is also the medical side. As far as I know, when the brain dies, there is a nearly universal belief in the medical community that a person is dead. The body's other organs might be kept functioning mechanically, but the person is considered to be dead. This is accepted both medically and, I believe, legally. So again, tying the brain to what makes a person a person is not arbitrary.

You have no idea what the framers of the constitution would believe about when someone gains constitutional protections today, nor do I.

I'm not sure what the ability to see or hear has to do with what I've said. I didn't mention anything about those senses. I also don't know what cases you are talking about, so I cannot comment on them.

I will happily admit to there being a great deal of gray area on this subject. Look at something such as the Terri Shiavo case; was the essential person still alive, or was it nothing but a shell that used to hold that person? How exactly can we know whether or not someone still has the capacity for thought given our current understanding of brain function and ability to observe that function? I am neither an expert nor do I believe I know the answers to all possible questions regarding what makes a person a person. I believe without reservation, however, that if my brain were able to be removed and destroyed, yet the rest of my body kept functioning through mechanical means, that I would be dead; the body being kept functioning would not be me, would not be the person I am.

I do not deny that some statutes make a fetus a legal person. They do not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution, however.

I accept that you consider a person to be a person from the moment of conception (at least, that is what I gather from your posts). I know that many others agree with that opinion. However, that also does not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution.

Legally, a fetus can both be a person and not be a person. The law is like that.

You disagree with the way I personally define what is a person. That does not make my reasoning arbitrary, just something you consider to be wrong.

There is no way to answer a post that long - point by point - on this pos phone of mine.

Suffice it to say, that when a child in the womb is already legally recognized as a person enough to have their killers charged with MURDER? That's person enough for me.

Edit; As for your claim that the government can have it both way and have the child be recognized as a person in one situation but deny their personhood in another? I can't disagree more. If the government can do that with the rights of a child in the womb. . . They could do the same to you. Or me. Or to anyone else in any other situations where the government sees fit.

The government already does have various entities count as a "person" in some contexts but not others. It feels like beating a dead horse, but a corporation can legally be a person. However, a corporation is not subject to the full range of constitutional protections because it does not always constitute a person.

And while I understand how that could be frustrating (the ideosynchrasies of law often frustrate me when I happen upon them), a desire to simplify the issue could backfire; if the courts felt the need to limit when something is considered a person, it's possible they could rule that a human is only a person after birth just as easily as from conception.

I find it exceedingly unlikely that abortion will be deemed unconstitutional any time soon. Much as this issue seems to be one with extreme views, I think compromise legislation such as that in the OP is probably the best those who oppose abortion can hope for right now.

If the government can so easily have it both ways, as you claim. . .

Why then did they say this in the Roe v Wade decision;

IX
The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

Have you not actually been paying attention to the argument? The quote is saying that if personhood "within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment" is established, it collapses the case. Fetal homicide laws do not make a fetus a person within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. State laws do not determine constitutional interpretation. They might be used to make such an interpretation, but a state passing a law does not suddenly change the way the constitution is interpreted or applied. That requires an amendment or USSC decision.

Unless and until the SCOTUS decides that fetal homicide laws establish personhood for fetuses under the 14th, that quote is meaningless to this discussion. And in fact, the courts have so far ruled that such laws do not change the interpretation of Roe. I have provided links to and quotes from multiple such decisions.

And finally, again, corporations can be considered persons. Do you think corporations therefore have a right to life?

 

[Chuz Life]

If the government can so easily have it both ways, as you claim. . .

Why then did they say this in the Roe v Wade decision;

IX
The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

Great, so now explain how a fetus is a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment...

If you are so ignorant that you really can't see how a MURDER charge for killing a child in the womb serves to establish the personhood and the Constitutional rights (to not be murdered) for tge child killed? Im afraid any further explanation will be a waste of time with you.

Is a fetus a citizen? Is a fetus counted to determine the number of representatives in Congress?

Are illegal aliens or any other non-citizens "persons?"

Are they counted to determine representatives?

Did persons exists before census takings?

 

[Montrovant]

If the government can so easily have it both ways, as you claim. . .

Why then did they say this in the Roe v Wade decision;

IX
The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

Great, so now explain how a fetus is a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment...

If you are so ignorant that you really can't see how a MURDER charge for killing a child in the womb serves to establish the personhood and the Constitutional rights (to not be murdered) for tge child killed? Im afraid any further explanation will be a waste of time with you.

Is a fetus a citizen? Is a fetus counted to determine the number of representatives in Congress?

Are illegal aliens or any other non-citizens "persons?"

Are they counted to determine representatives?

Did persons exists before census takings?

So is it your contention that state statutes determine constitutional rights or interpretations? That any individual state can pass a law and change how the SCOTUS interprets the constitution?

I've already posted from the SCOTUS on the subject. In Webster v Reproductive Health Services, the SCOTUS said:

The preamble does not, by its terms, regulate abortions or any other aspect of appellees' medical practice, and § 1.205.2 can be interpreted to do no more than offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under Roe v. Wade, supra, at 161-162. This Court has emphasized that Roe implies no limitation on a State's authority to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 474, and the preamble can be read simply to express that sort of value judgment.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

The US Supreme Court has already ruled that states can create tort and probate law which protects the unborn while still following the Roe ruling; it isn't a stretch to say the same for criminal law.

 

[Coyote]

So you require child persons to live too long and develop past some arbitrarily decided point where after which you can no longer deny they are persons.

Got it.

If you can find reason to deny them, they ain't persons.

To you.

Arbitrary? What makes your decided point any less arbitrary than any other?

Let's see. First there is the scientific fact that we human beings do not reproduce by metamorphosis like frogs and butterflies do. That is, we don't reproduce by breeding to create one organism that later morphs into another. Science has determined that in human beings (all mammals, actually) our young is the same organism throughout each individual's lifespan. Likewise, scientists have determined that "aging" begins at conception too. So, one field of science actually confirms and supports the conclusions drawn by the other.

Secondly, we have legal determinations like our fetal homicide laws, laws against patents on human beings (embryos) etc. That define and recognize "children in the wombs" as human beings and children, already. Those laws do not say "it's a child in the womb UNLESS the mom wants to abort." They say that it's a "child in the womb" and a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act BUT, we are going to give women a free pass if they don't want it.

Thirdly and also legally, the legal definition for what a natural person is is simply "a human being" and "a human being" in ANY stage of their development certainly meets that criteria.

Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." I just provided scientific and legal systems that support my reasoning. Have you? Can you provide a legal source that says that brainwaves are actually a scientific or legal requirement for human "personhood?"

I didn't come to the conclusion that the human brain is what makes for a person, different from other animals, by picking the idea out of a hat. The sense of self; I think, therefore I am; the ability to live by more than just instinct; these things make us more than just another animal.

You might not have picked that thought out of a hat. . . but the conclusions you draw from it is never the less 'arbitrary.' Because, among other things, you completely ignore the relevance of court cases involving children born with absolutely NO capacity for thoughts, feelings or the ability to see, hear or feel pain. . . where the courts recognize those children as having the same right to the protections of our laws that any other human being has.

Go further, and look at the wording of the constitution, and the unborn are not mentioned. The born are, as in the example of natural-born citizen; the authors of our constitution don't seem to have felt a need to make sure fetuses were granted constitutional protections or status as persons. In fact, from what I've read, abortion was legal at the time of the founding of the country.

From a legal, constitutional standpoint, as well as a personal one, a fetus in early pregnancy is not a person. You clearly disagree, but that doesn't mean that definition of person is an arbitrary one.

The Constitution mentions birth only to establish citizenship. Not Personhood. It is ludicrous to suggest that the framers of the Constitution would deny that children in womb are human beings/ persons today. . given the knowledge and images we have today (that THEY didn't have) such as 3d ultrasounds, genetics, etc.

You seem incapable of accepting a difference between a person, particularly in the context of the constitution, and a human being. They are not necessarily exact synonyms.

I have gone over and over the fact that the courts, including the Supreme Court, consider things such as fetal homicide laws perfectly acceptable while still maintaining the Roe v Wade ruling; the judicial system of this country sees a difference between a statute calling a fetus a person and a person in the context of the 14th amendment.

My conclusions regarding the brain being responsible for making a person are not arbitrary. They are, in fact, based in large part of the current human understanding of anatomy and physiology. The brain is the organ which is responsible for our thoughts. Without the brain, there is no thought. Consider personality; without thought the person in personality does not exist. Again, you may disagree with my view, but that does not make it arbitrary.

I also seem to have a stronger grasp of the legal view of the term person than you do. Yes, certain fetal homicide laws, or other statutes, may define a fetus as a person. That does not mean that a fetus is a person in the context of the 14th amendment, or any other part of the constitution, however. Legally, a corporation can be a person, yet it is not covered by all of the protections granted persons in the constitution. So legally, my view has just as much validity as yours, and once again, is far from arbitrary.

There is also the medical side. As far as I know, when the brain dies, there is a nearly universal belief in the medical community that a person is dead. The body's other organs might be kept functioning mechanically, but the person is considered to be dead. This is accepted both medically and, I believe, legally. So again, tying the brain to what makes a person a person is not arbitrary.

You have no idea what the framers of the constitution would believe about when someone gains constitutional protections today, nor do I.

I'm not sure what the ability to see or hear has to do with what I've said. I didn't mention anything about those senses. I also don't know what cases you are talking about, so I cannot comment on them.

I will happily admit to there being a great deal of gray area on this subject. Look at something such as the Terri Shiavo case; was the essential person still alive, or was it nothing but a shell that used to hold that person? How exactly can we know whether or not someone still has the capacity for thought given our current understanding of brain function and ability to observe that function? I am neither an expert nor do I believe I know the answers to all possible questions regarding what makes a person a person. I believe without reservation, however, that if my brain were able to be removed and destroyed, yet the rest of my body kept functioning through mechanical means, that I would be dead; the body being kept functioning would not be me, would not be the person I am.

I do not deny that some statutes make a fetus a legal person. They do not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution, however.

I accept that you consider a person to be a person from the moment of conception (at least, that is what I gather from your posts). I know that many others agree with that opinion. However, that also does not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution.

Legally, a fetus can both be a person and not be a person. The law is like that.

You disagree with the way I personally define what is a person. That does not make my reasoning arbitrary, just something you consider to be wrong.

There is no way to answer a post that long - point by point - on this pos phone of mine.

Suffice it to say, that when a child in the womb is already legally recognized as a person enough to have their killers charged with MURDER? That's person enough for me.

Edit; As for your claim that the government can have it both way and have the child be recognized as a person in one situation but deny their personhood in another? I can't disagree more. If the government can do that with the rights of a child in the womb. . . They could do the same to you. Or me. Or to anyone else in any other situations where the government sees fit.

Depends on the state. As you’ve been shown, in some states, such convictions are for killing a fetus, not a person.

It is always fetal homicide isnt it? Not homicide. That eould seem to be applying a legal distiction.

 

[Chuz Life]

If the government can so easily have it both ways, as you claim. . .

Why then did they say this in the Roe v Wade decision;

IX
The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

Great, so now explain how a fetus is a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment...

If you are so ignorant that you really can't see how a MURDER charge for killing a child in the womb serves to establish the personhood and the Constitutional rights (to not be murdered) for tge child killed? Im afraid any further explanation will be a waste of time with you.

Is a fetus a citizen? Is a fetus counted to determine the number of representatives in Congress?

Are illegal aliens or any other non-citizens "persons?"

Are they counted to determine representatives?

Did persons exists before census takings?

So is it your contention that state statutes determine constitutional rights or interpretations? That any individual state can pass a law and change how the SCOTUS interprets the constitution?

I've already posted from the SCOTUS on the subject. In Webster v Reproductive Health Services, the SCOTUS said:

The preamble does not, by its terms, regulate abortions or any other aspect of appellees' medical practice, and § 1.205.2 can be interpreted to do no more than offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under Roe v. Wade, supra, at 161-162. This Court has emphasized that Roe implies no limitation on a State's authority to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 474, and the preamble can be read simply to express that sort of value judgment.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

The US Supreme Court has already ruled that states can create tort and probate law which protects the unborn while still following the Roe ruling; it isn't a stretch to say the same for criminal law.

1. In addition to the more than 30 State laws that define children in the womb AS such (fetal homicide laws) , we also have the Federal law which does the same and pretty much formed the basis for all those that followed.

2. YES. As the SCOTUS anticipated, I actually do expect that all our fetal Homicide laws will eventually affect their interpretation of the facts around when a child's rights and personhood begins. Why else do you think all the pro aborts opposed the new laws?

3. The courts have ruled that the States can try to have it both ways for now. That does not mean it can not or will not be challenged. The challenges will inevitably continue incrementally as we are already seeing take place.

 

[Chuz Life]

Arbitrary? What makes your decided point any less arbitrary than any other?

Let's see. First there is the scientific fact that we human beings do not reproduce by metamorphosis like frogs and butterflies do. That is, we don't reproduce by breeding to create one organism that later morphs into another. Science has determined that in human beings (all mammals, actually) our young is the same organism throughout each individual's lifespan. Likewise, scientists have determined that "aging" begins at conception too. So, one field of science actually confirms and supports the conclusions drawn by the other.

Secondly, we have legal determinations like our fetal homicide laws, laws against patents on human beings (embryos) etc. That define and recognize "children in the wombs" as human beings and children, already. Those laws do not say "it's a child in the womb UNLESS the mom wants to abort." They say that it's a "child in the womb" and a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act BUT, we are going to give women a free pass if they don't want it.

Thirdly and also legally, the legal definition for what a natural person is is simply "a human being" and "a human being" in ANY stage of their development certainly meets that criteria.

Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." I just provided scientific and legal systems that support my reasoning. Have you? Can you provide a legal source that says that brainwaves are actually a scientific or legal requirement for human "personhood?"

I didn't come to the conclusion that the human brain is what makes for a person, different from other animals, by picking the idea out of a hat. The sense of self; I think, therefore I am; the ability to live by more than just instinct; these things make us more than just another animal.

You might not have picked that thought out of a hat. . . but the conclusions you draw from it is never the less 'arbitrary.' Because, among other things, you completely ignore the relevance of court cases involving children born with absolutely NO capacity for thoughts, feelings or the ability to see, hear or feel pain. . . where the courts recognize those children as having the same right to the protections of our laws that any other human being has.

Go further, and look at the wording of the constitution, and the unborn are not mentioned. The born are, as in the example of natural-born citizen; the authors of our constitution don't seem to have felt a need to make sure fetuses were granted constitutional protections or status as persons. In fact, from what I've read, abortion was legal at the time of the founding of the country.

From a legal, constitutional standpoint, as well as a personal one, a fetus in early pregnancy is not a person. You clearly disagree, but that doesn't mean that definition of person is an arbitrary one.

The Constitution mentions birth only to establish citizenship. Not Personhood. It is ludicrous to suggest that the framers of the Constitution would deny that children in womb are human beings/ persons today. . given the knowledge and images we have today (that THEY didn't have) such as 3d ultrasounds, genetics, etc.

You seem incapable of accepting a difference between a person, particularly in the context of the constitution, and a human being. They are not necessarily exact synonyms.

I have gone over and over the fact that the courts, including the Supreme Court, consider things such as fetal homicide laws perfectly acceptable while still maintaining the Roe v Wade ruling; the judicial system of this country sees a difference between a statute calling a fetus a person and a person in the context of the 14th amendment.

My conclusions regarding the brain being responsible for making a person are not arbitrary. They are, in fact, based in large part of the current human understanding of anatomy and physiology. The brain is the organ which is responsible for our thoughts. Without the brain, there is no thought. Consider personality; without thought the person in personality does not exist. Again, you may disagree with my view, but that does not make it arbitrary.

I also seem to have a stronger grasp of the legal view of the term person than you do. Yes, certain fetal homicide laws, or other statutes, may define a fetus as a person. That does not mean that a fetus is a person in the context of the 14th amendment, or any other part of the constitution, however. Legally, a corporation can be a person, yet it is not covered by all of the protections granted persons in the constitution. So legally, my view has just as much validity as yours, and once again, is far from arbitrary.

There is also the medical side. As far as I know, when the brain dies, there is a nearly universal belief in the medical community that a person is dead. The body's other organs might be kept functioning mechanically, but the person is considered to be dead. This is accepted both medically and, I believe, legally. So again, tying the brain to what makes a person a person is not arbitrary.

You have no idea what the framers of the constitution would believe about when someone gains constitutional protections today, nor do I.

I'm not sure what the ability to see or hear has to do with what I've said. I didn't mention anything about those senses. I also don't know what cases you are talking about, so I cannot comment on them.

I will happily admit to there being a great deal of gray area on this subject. Look at something such as the Terri Shiavo case; was the essential person still alive, or was it nothing but a shell that used to hold that person? How exactly can we know whether or not someone still has the capacity for thought given our current understanding of brain function and ability to observe that function? I am neither an expert nor do I believe I know the answers to all possible questions regarding what makes a person a person. I believe without reservation, however, that if my brain were able to be removed and destroyed, yet the rest of my body kept functioning through mechanical means, that I would be dead; the body being kept functioning would not be me, would not be the person I am.

I do not deny that some statutes make a fetus a legal person. They do not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution, however.

I accept that you consider a person to be a person from the moment of conception (at least, that is what I gather from your posts). I know that many others agree with that opinion. However, that also does not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution.

Legally, a fetus can both be a person and not be a person. The law is like that.

You disagree with the way I personally define what is a person. That does not make my reasoning arbitrary, just something you consider to be wrong.

There is no way to answer a post that long - point by point - on this pos phone of mine.

Suffice it to say, that when a child in the womb is already legally recognized as a person enough to have their killers charged with MURDER? That's person enough for me.

Edit; As for your claim that the government can have it both way and have the child be recognized as a person in one situation but deny their personhood in another? I can't disagree more. If the government can do that with the rights of a child in the womb. . . They could do the same to you. Or me. Or to anyone else in any other situations where the government sees fit.

Depends on the state. As you’ve been shown, in some states, such convictions are for killing a fetus, not a person.

It is always fetal homicide isnt it? Not homicide. That eould seem to be applying a legal distiction.

Make all the legal distinctions you want.

As long as the charge is murder... That means the child that was killed was a person in a much more significant way than a corporation is.

 

[Coyote]

Let's see. First there is the scientific fact that we human beings do not reproduce by metamorphosis like frogs and butterflies do. That is, we don't reproduce by breeding to create one organism that later morphs into another. Science has determined that in human beings (all mammals, actually) our young is the same organism throughout each individual's lifespan. Likewise, scientists have determined that "aging" begins at conception too. So, one field of science actually confirms and supports the conclusions drawn by the other.

Secondly, we have legal determinations like our fetal homicide laws, laws against patents on human beings (embryos) etc. That define and recognize "children in the wombs" as human beings and children, already. Those laws do not say "it's a child in the womb UNLESS the mom wants to abort." They say that it's a "child in the womb" and a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act BUT, we are going to give women a free pass if they don't want it.

Thirdly and also legally, the legal definition for what a natural person is is simply "a human being" and "a human being" in ANY stage of their development certainly meets that criteria.

Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." I just provided scientific and legal systems that support my reasoning. Have you? Can you provide a legal source that says that brainwaves are actually a scientific or legal requirement for human "personhood?"


You might not have picked that thought out of a hat. . . but the conclusions you draw from it is never the less 'arbitrary.' Because, among other things, you completely ignore the relevance of court cases involving children born with absolutely NO capacity for thoughts, feelings or the ability to see, hear or feel pain. . . where the courts recognize those children as having the same right to the protections of our laws that any other human being has.

The Constitution mentions birth only to establish citizenship. Not Personhood. It is ludicrous to suggest that the framers of the Constitution would deny that children in womb are human beings/ persons today. . given the knowledge and images we have today (that THEY didn't have) such as 3d ultrasounds, genetics, etc.

You seem incapable of accepting a difference between a person, particularly in the context of the constitution, and a human being. They are not necessarily exact synonyms.

I have gone over and over the fact that the courts, including the Supreme Court, consider things such as fetal homicide laws perfectly acceptable while still maintaining the Roe v Wade ruling; the judicial system of this country sees a difference between a statute calling a fetus a person and a person in the context of the 14th amendment.

My conclusions regarding the brain being responsible for making a person are not arbitrary. They are, in fact, based in large part of the current human understanding of anatomy and physiology. The brain is the organ which is responsible for our thoughts. Without the brain, there is no thought. Consider personality; without thought the person in personality does not exist. Again, you may disagree with my view, but that does not make it arbitrary.

I also seem to have a stronger grasp of the legal view of the term person than you do. Yes, certain fetal homicide laws, or other statutes, may define a fetus as a person. That does not mean that a fetus is a person in the context of the 14th amendment, or any other part of the constitution, however. Legally, a corporation can be a person, yet it is not covered by all of the protections granted persons in the constitution. So legally, my view has just as much validity as yours, and once again, is far from arbitrary.

There is also the medical side. As far as I know, when the brain dies, there is a nearly universal belief in the medical community that a person is dead. The body's other organs might be kept functioning mechanically, but the person is considered to be dead. This is accepted both medically and, I believe, legally. So again, tying the brain to what makes a person a person is not arbitrary.

You have no idea what the framers of the constitution would believe about when someone gains constitutional protections today, nor do I.

I'm not sure what the ability to see or hear has to do with what I've said. I didn't mention anything about those senses. I also don't know what cases you are talking about, so I cannot comment on them.

I will happily admit to there being a great deal of gray area on this subject. Look at something such as the Terri Shiavo case; was the essential person still alive, or was it nothing but a shell that used to hold that person? How exactly can we know whether or not someone still has the capacity for thought given our current understanding of brain function and ability to observe that function? I am neither an expert nor do I believe I know the answers to all possible questions regarding what makes a person a person. I believe without reservation, however, that if my brain were able to be removed and destroyed, yet the rest of my body kept functioning through mechanical means, that I would be dead; the body being kept functioning would not be me, would not be the person I am.

I do not deny that some statutes make a fetus a legal person. They do not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution, however.

I accept that you consider a person to be a person from the moment of conception (at least, that is what I gather from your posts). I know that many others agree with that opinion. However, that also does not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution.

Legally, a fetus can both be a person and not be a person. The law is like that.

You disagree with the way I personally define what is a person. That does not make my reasoning arbitrary, just something you consider to be wrong.

There is no way to answer a post that long - point by point - on this pos phone of mine.

Suffice it to say, that when a child in the womb is already legally recognized as a person enough to have their killers charged with MURDER? That's person enough for me.

Edit; As for your claim that the government can have it both way and have the child be recognized as a person in one situation but deny their personhood in another? I can't disagree more. If the government can do that with the rights of a child in the womb. . . They could do the same to you. Or me. Or to anyone else in any other situations where the government sees fit.

Depends on the state. As you’ve been shown, in some states, such convictions are for killing a fetus, not a person.

It is always fetal homicide isnt it? Not homicide. That eould seem to be applying a legal distiction.

Make all the legal distinctions you want.

As long as the charge is murder... That means the child that was killed was a person in a much more significant way than a corporation is.

Legal distinctions are made for a reason. Im not the one making it.

 

[Montrovant]

If the government can so easily have it both ways, as you claim. . .

Why then did they say this in the Roe v Wade decision;

IX
The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

Great, so now explain how a fetus is a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment...

If you are so ignorant that you really can't see how a MURDER charge for killing a child in the womb serves to establish the personhood and the Constitutional rights (to not be murdered) for tge child killed? Im afraid any further explanation will be a waste of time with you.

Is a fetus a citizen? Is a fetus counted to determine the number of representatives in Congress?

Are illegal aliens or any other non-citizens "persons?"

Are they counted to determine representatives?

Did persons exists before census takings?

So is it your contention that state statutes determine constitutional rights or interpretations? That any individual state can pass a law and change how the SCOTUS interprets the constitution?

I've already posted from the SCOTUS on the subject. In Webster v Reproductive Health Services, the SCOTUS said:

The preamble does not, by its terms, regulate abortions or any other aspect of appellees' medical practice, and § 1.205.2 can be interpreted to do no more than offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under Roe v. Wade, supra, at 161-162. This Court has emphasized that Roe implies no limitation on a State's authority to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 474, and the preamble can be read simply to express that sort of value judgment.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

The US Supreme Court has already ruled that states can create tort and probate law which protects the unborn while still following the Roe ruling; it isn't a stretch to say the same for criminal law.

1. In addition to the more than 30 State laws that define children in the womb AS such (fetal homicide laws) , we also have the Federal law which does the same and pretty much formed the basis for all those that followed.

2. YES. As the SCOTUS anticipated, I actually do expect that all our fetal Homicide laws will eventually affect their interpretation of the facts around when a child's rights and personhood begins. Why else do you think all the pro aborts opposed the new laws?

3. The courts have ruled that the States can try to have it both ways for now. That does not mean it can not or will not be challenged. The challenges will inevitably continue incrementally as we are already seeing take place.

1. I don't believe all of the fetal homicide laws actually define the fetus as a person. Some certainly do, but from the bit of reading I've done, some do not.

2. I believe that those who oppose fetal homicide laws based on the designation of a fetus as a person do so out of ignorance. Like you, I think they assume that because a state law defines a fetus as a person, it must therefore be true everywhere. That is not the case. Of course, fetal homicide laws can also affect the way society looks at fetuses, so in that sense, you have a valid point.

3. Of course Roe can be challenged, as can fetal homicide laws, or any other law or ruling. My only real issue is that you continue to discuss fetal homicide laws as though they are de facto proof that a fetus is a person under the 14th. That is clearly untrue based on relevant court rulings.