What Constitutional Rights Apply to an Unborn Fetus: Judicial Interpretation as opposed to Legal/JudicialPhilosophy

[Pellinore]

Thank you for responding. You're the only one who disagrees with me who has.

Fertilization. Matter of textbook scientific fact. Argument over?

No. Science also tells us that the newly-fertilized zygote has no brain functions and no conscious awareness of its own existence. It has no heart, no brain, no senses, and no ability to survive on its own, all according to science. Does the Constitution consider that "life"? It doesn't say, purposefully leaving that up to the individual.

No, that’s science’s role - it is the job of the government to define legal personhood. And a government that is just and follows principles of equality would not restrict legal personhood from any living human being.

Only if the Constitution had stipulated that we must make our determinations based on hard science, which it does not. In fact, the Bill of Rights communicates much more from a position of philosophy than hard science, which it hardly mentions at all. That would support the idea that this, too, is a philosophical question.

Religion does not actually matter in this context. If your religion’s beliefs align with the reality that life begins at fertilization, great, easy. If not, oh well, you can have your beliefs, but reality and law should not respect your religion so much that we try to cater our laws to your delusion and magical thinking. Your practice of religion is your business alone until you try to use it to justify attacking others, as would be the case here.

Religion does matter, because it is an ideology and a belief system, and a very popular one at that. The purpose of law in the first place is to temper man's worst impulses, and society determines what is "worst." It's a subjective determination that science can't answer, so it's up to our ideology which, in many peoples' case, includes religion.

No, not really. Our government doesn’t protect everyone’s ability to choose for themselves if they want to steal, rape, enslave, murder, etc. Not all choices are valid, legal, and permissible. Some choices just determine criminal intent and premeditation.

The applicable one here being murder, in which a definitely human being is required; that's why you see "a human being" specified on many murder charges.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Thank you for responding. You're the only one who disagrees with me who has.

Sure. And I operate (or try to operate) on a tit-for-tat when it comes to tone / politeness. Thus far, you seem polite even if I disagree, so I’ll try to do the same.

No. Science also tells us that the newly-fertilized zygote has no brain functions and no conscious awareness of its own existence.

That doesn’t really matter, though. Alive and conscious are two different standards. E. coli are alive, they will never be conscious. Increase biological complexity exponentially and we can say the same thing about an adult oak tree.

Animals we eat for breakfast or use as recreational or occupational property have more awareness (sentience) and more judgment (sapience) than a newborn human we legally grant personhood to.

Does the Constitution consider that "life"?

As noted, the Constitution doesn’t say much - it isn’t a very long document - and this is one of those areas where it says nothing.

Only if the Constitution had stipulated that we must make our determinations based on hard science, which it does not. In fact, the Bill of Rights communicates much more from a position of philosophy than hard science, which it hardly mentions at all. That would support the idea that this, too, is a philosophical question.

The beginning of life is not a philosophical or political question, it’s not even a matter of debate or subjective opinion at all.

What life has value - and how much value - is a philosophical question, yes… even if many, including myself, find it distasteful to start dividing human beings into valued people and disposable property.

Legal abortion is very much predicated on denying personhood to some humans so they are the property of their mother, such that their mother can do whatever she wants to them.

Religion does matter, because it is an ideology and a belief system, and a very popular one at that.

People’s religion is their personal business. Law and government should be neutral and / or secular in my opinion.

In this specific case, we have a government that uses technology and engineers that need to know basic physics and universal laws. If some religions didn’t believe in gravity, having NASA take gravity into account is not an endorsement of the gravity supporting religions nor specifically a condemnation of the scientifically inaccurate, counterfactual beliefs of the gravity deniers.

The applicable one here being murder, in which a definitely human being is required; that's why you see "a human being" specified on many murder charges.

They can be no other species, so this is likewise not a point in dispute.

 

[HeyNorm]

Sure. And I operate (or try to operate) on a tit-for-tat when it comes to tone / politeness. Thus far, you seem polite even if I disagree, so I’ll try to do the same.


That doesn’t really matter, though. Alive and conscious are two different standards. E. coli are alive, they will never be conscious. Increase biological complexity exponentially and we can say the same thing about an adult oak tree.

Animals we eat for breakfast or use as recreational or occupational property have more awareness (sentience) and more judgment (sapience) than a newborn human we legally grant personhood to.


As noted, the Constitution doesn’t say much - it isn’t a very long document - and this is one of those areas where it says nothing.


The beginning of life is not a philosophical or political question, it’s not even a matter of debate or subjective opinion at all.

What life has value - and how much value - is a philosophical question, yes… even if many, including myself, find it distasteful to start dividing human beings into valued people and disposable property.

Legal abortion is very much predicated on denying personhood to some humans so they are the property of their mother, such that their mother can do whatever she wants to them.

People’s religion is their personal business. Law and government should be neutral and / or secular in my opinion.

In this specific case, we have a government that uses technology and engineers that need to know basic physics and universal laws. If some religions didn’t believe in gravity, having NASA take gravity into account is not an endorsement of the gravity supporting religions nor specifically a condemnation of the scientifically inaccurate, counterfactual beliefs of the gravity deniers.


They can be no other species, so this is likewise not a point in dispute.

Notice how “the ability to survive on its own” is a key argument, until you point out that toddlers are unable to sustain life on their own, then it’s ……


But, but, but.

Just like the Nazis dehumanized the Jews.

 

[Blues Man]

Can we find it in the US Constitution? If so where? If not...

A fetus has no Constitutional rights and never will

 

[Blues Man]

Every innocent human being, born or unborn, have God given natural rights that are superior to any other rights, including the Constitution.

Murder is still murder even if the human isn't born yet.
Stop butchering babies & we will leave you lefties alone to continue with your non-violent delusions.

And what gives you the right to force your religion onto others?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

A fetus has no Constitutional rights and never will

Well, people like you said the same thing about slavery, yet the 13th exists.

We’ll get the same thing done here via Constitutional Amendment and then you can die mad about it.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

And what gives you the right to force your religion onto others?

He isn’t, moron.

 

[Blues Man]

Well, people like you said the same thing about slavery, yet the 13th exists.

We’ll get the same thing done here via Constitutional Amendment and then you can die mad about it.

you'll never get an amendment declaring a fetus a person because you will never meet the requirements.

 

[Blues Man]

He isn’t, moron.

He is using gods in his argument to force women to bear children THAT is a religious argument.

What if a woman doesn't believe in the god this guy worships?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

He is using gods in his argument to force women to bear children THAT is a religious argument.

What if a woman doesn't believe in the god this guy worships?

Never happened, lying douchebag.

 

[Blues Man]

Never happened, lying douchebag.

this is what he said

Every innocent human being, born or unborn, have God given natural rights that are superior to any other rights, including the Constitution.

That is a religious argument.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

this is what he said



That is a religious argument.

Every human being has natural and unalienable human rights independent of government. This is not “a religious argument,” this is basic civics, something you should know as a grade schooler in the United States. It’s right in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Blues Man]

Every human being has natural and unalienable human rights independent of government. This is not “a religious argument,” this is basic civics, something you should know as a grade schooler in the United States. It’s right in the Declaration of Independence.

That's not what the other guy said is it?

And the term human being is not in the Declaration is it?

There has never been one instance where the Supreme Court has ruled that the word "person" in the Constitution includes the unborn.

 

[HeyNorm]

That's not what the other guy said is it?

And the term human being is not in the Declaration is it?

There has never been one instance where the Supreme Court has ruled that the word "person" in the Constitution includes the unborn.

We can fix that just as easily as we did with slaves

 

[Blues Man]

.

We can fix that just as easily as we did with slaves

Good luck meeting the requirements for an amendment.

 

[HeyNorm]

.

Good luck meeting the requirements for an amendment.

The taking of human life does not require an amendment to criminalize.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

jgs230111-#2 johngaltshrugged “Every innocent human being, born or unborn, have God given natural rights that are superior to any other rights, including the Constitution.”
NFBW: Not before fetal viability according to English Common Law in effect during the 18th & 19th Century when a 1906 court case refers to aquick fetus” as follows:

A.Tang220602 “Appearing before the Oregon Supreme Court, attorneys for the state insisted that “abortion is not a crime” under Oregon law unless it results in the death “of a quick fetus.” Dunn had accordingly broken no law because he performed Kruse’s abortion prior to quickening—the point at which a fetus makes its first noticeable movement, as early as fifteen or sixteen weeks in pregnancy.”

NFBW: Early American murder laws did not assign natural rights to a fetus until it becomes a quick fetus at fifteen or sixteen weeks. There is no person being murdered prior to that.

Why do you say johngaltshrugged that a 12 week fetus has rights superior to any other rights? You have no authority or American legal precedent to declare such a thing. You are not respecting truth.

END2301131628

 

[HeyNorm]

jgs230111-#2 johngaltshrugged “Every innocent human being, born or unborn, have God given natural rights that are superior to any other rights, including the Constitution.”
NFBW: Not before fetal viability according to English Common Law in effect during the 18th & 19th Century when a 1906 court case refers to aquick fetus” as follows:

A.Tang220602 “Appearing before the Oregon Supreme Court, attorneys for the state insisted that “abortion is not a crime” under Oregon law unless it results in the death “of a quick fetus.” Dunn had accordingly broken no law because he performed Kruse’s abortion prior to quickening—the point at which a fetus makes its first noticeable movement, as early as fifteen or sixteen weeks in pregnancy.”

NFBW: Early American murder laws did not assign natural rights to a fetus until it becomes a quick fetus at fifteen or sixteen weeks. There is no person being murdered prior to that.

Why do you say johngaltshrugged that a 12 week fetus has rights superior to any other rights? You have no authority or American legal precedent to declare such a thing. You are not respecting truth.

END2301131628

Then those fetal homicide laws are unconstitutional? Interesting.

Oh, and C Sections. Are children not born, but removed, not to be afforded any constitutional rights?

Hmmmmm

 

[Blues Man]

The taking of human life does not require an amendment to criminalize.

if a fetus is not a person it cannot be murdered

And you'll notice that any state that has banned abortion does not charge a Dr with murder but rather for performing an banned medical procedure.

 

[Blues Man]

Then those fetal homicide laws are unconstitutional? Interesting.

Oh, and C Sections. Are children not born, but removed, not to be afforded any constitutional rights?

Hmmmmm

None of them have been challenged in the Supreme Court yet