Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Parents Against Personhood? That just seems wrong.....kind of like being against puppies or happiness.there's understanding matters of science and then there's understanding matters of the law...
"the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons"
The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS
Welcome to Parents Against Personhood! We are an advocacy organization dedicated to fighting "personhood" ballot initiatives and legislation, and raising voter awareness about how personhood poses dangerous potential consequences to infertility treatment, birth control, and pregnancy care.
Parents Against Personhood -
Because you see conception as when a person becomes a person. Those that do not do not see a contradiction.Where has anyone said 'only sometimes.' That is a false statement. A person is always a person. What is being said is that at some point that person comes into being. The point that occurs is what is in question and it is that question that is not answered in the constitution.there's understanding matters of science and then there's understanding matters of the law...
"the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons"
The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS
Welcome to Parents Against Personhood! We are an advocacy organization dedicated to fighting "personhood" ballot initiatives and legislation, and raising voter awareness about how personhood poses dangerous potential consequences to infertility treatment, birth control, and pregnancy care.
Parents Against Personhood -
That part about "only sometimes regarded as as person?"
That's all we need for the legal basis to fight for the rest of the rights and protections which are [for now ] being denied.
I agree that a person is always a person. "Sometimes" as with legalized abortion, our laws fall short of protecting the rights of those children / persons in the womb.
I agree that a person is always a person. "Sometimes" as with legalized abortion, our laws fall short of protecting the rights of those children / persons in the womb.
I agree that a person is always a person. "Sometimes" as with legalized abortion, our laws fall short of protecting the rights of those children / persons in the womb.
"Person" or not, nobody has the right to occupy another human being's uterus against her will.
I agree that a person is always a person. "Sometimes" as with legalized abortion, our laws fall short of protecting the rights of those children / persons in the womb.
"Person" or not, nobody has the right to occupy another human being's uterus against her will.
Unless the woman was raped, the only reason she has a child in her womb is because of the risks and the actions that she and her partner took to create it and put it there. . . So the claim that the child is using her uterus against her will is weak at best.
It is your argument that is weak at best. You are a third party with no compelling interest in a woman's uterus.I agree that a person is always a person. "Sometimes" as with legalized abortion, our laws fall short of protecting the rights of those children / persons in the womb.
"Person" or not, nobody has the right to occupy another human being's uterus against her will.
Unless the woman was raped, the only reason she has a child in her womb is because of the risks and the actions that she and her partner took to create it and put it there. . . So the claim that the child is using her uterus against her will is weak at best.
If a mother views the child within her as a non-person renting space in her uterus, I sincerely hope that woman never becomes a mother.
This fails as a false comparison fallacy."A (US) discussion about Personhood and when it begins."
Prior to birth, each individual has the right to decide for himself when ‘personhood’ begins, in accordance with his own good faith and good conscience, immune from attack by the state.
As a fact of Constitutional law, ‘personhood’ begins once birth is realized, not before:
The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
Thus the Court in its wisdom safeguards the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal, private decisions without government interference, where vital limits are placed on the size and authority of government, and individual liberty enhanced.
No one disputes what the court has stated in past rulings.
The question is (sans the Dred Scott case) "Is the Supreme Court infallible on the issue of personhood" and the equal rights as persons that all human beings are Constitutionally entitled to?
This fails as a false comparison fallacy."A (US) discussion about Personhood and when it begins."
Prior to birth, each individual has the right to decide for himself when ‘personhood’ begins, in accordance with his own good faith and good conscience, immune from attack by the state.
As a fact of Constitutional law, ‘personhood’ begins once birth is realized, not before:
The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
Thus the Court in its wisdom safeguards the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal, private decisions without government interference, where vital limits are placed on the size and authority of government, and individual liberty enhanced.
No one disputes what the court has stated in past rulings.
The question is (sans the Dred Scott case) "Is the Supreme Court infallible on the issue of personhood" and the equal rights as persons that all human beings are Constitutionally entitled to?
And as we can see there are those blinded to the wisdom of the Court, whose arrogance and ignorance is such that they seek to compel conformity through the force of law, and increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.
Indeed, such as you have described, Jones, embrace fascism.This fails as a false comparison fallacy."A (US) discussion about Personhood and when it begins."
Prior to birth, each individual has the right to decide for himself when ‘personhood’ begins, in accordance with his own good faith and good conscience, immune from attack by the state.
As a fact of Constitutional law, ‘personhood’ begins once birth is realized, not before:
The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
Thus the Court in its wisdom safeguards the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal, private decisions without government interference, where vital limits are placed on the size and authority of government, and individual liberty enhanced.
No one disputes what the court has stated in past rulings.
The question is (sans the Dred Scott case) "Is the Supreme Court infallible on the issue of personhood" and the equal rights as persons that all human beings are Constitutionally entitled to?
And as we can see there are those blinded to the wisdom of the Court, whose arrogance and ignorance is such that they seek to compel conformity through the force of law, and increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.
Vigilante's link develops and then overturns his implied suggestion with, "On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
The law is about fetuses as victims, not fetuses as human beings, which is the point of the 14th.Vigilante's link develops and then overturns his implied suggestion with, "On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Was that LAW overturned, JakeAss?.... Re-argument did NOTHING to change it!
The law is about fetuses as victims, not fetuses as human beings, which is the point of the 14th.Vigilante's link develops and then overturns his implied suggestion with, "On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Was that LAW overturned, JakeAss?.... Re-argument did NOTHING to change it!
No, fetuses, companies, animals, me, you can be victims of our penal system.The law is about fetuses as victims, not fetuses as human beings, which is the point of the 14th.Vigilante's link develops and then overturns his implied suggestion with, "On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Was that LAW overturned, JakeAss?.... Re-argument did NOTHING to change it!
ONLY A HUMAN CAN BE A VICTIM UNDER OUR PENAL SYSTEM, unless YOU WANT TO GO INTO animal abuse!
Indeed, such as you have described, Jones, embrace fascism.This fails as a false comparison fallacy."A (US) discussion about Personhood and when it begins."
Prior to birth, each individual has the right to decide for himself when ‘personhood’ begins, in accordance with his own good faith and good conscience, immune from attack by the state.
As a fact of Constitutional law, ‘personhood’ begins once birth is realized, not before:
The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
Thus the Court in its wisdom safeguards the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal, private decisions without government interference, where vital limits are placed on the size and authority of government, and individual liberty enhanced.
No one disputes what the court has stated in past rulings.
The question is (sans the Dred Scott case) "Is the Supreme Court infallible on the issue of personhood" and the equal rights as persons that all human beings are Constitutionally entitled to?
And as we can see there are those blinded to the wisdom of the Court, whose arrogance and ignorance is such that they seek to compel conformity through the force of law, and increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.