CDZ What "is" the current legal definition for a "person?"

[Toronado3800]

You know, I lost interest in this thread when you started insisting that people provide you with a definition, and when they did, you said it wasn't good enough and didn't meet your requirements.

If you don't want a discussion, then why open a thread?

Opinions are not common ground.

Legal definitions ARE common ground.

Did you provide a LEGAL definition or a personal opinion?

Buddy, I provided you the complex effective legal definition a long time ago and talked about the inconsistencies.

The rest of the conversation seems rather like discussing what "cheating" is with a bad girlfriend.

You provided an opinion. Not a LEGAL source.

I felt it would either be condescending towards you for me to provide a legal source "proving" if you murder a pregnant woman in many states you are also charged with killing the fetus and a legal source saying abortion is legal or it would be.....odd.....for someone to demand legal links.

Debating what this or that dictionary or lawyer says just seems like word games compared to what law enforcement actually does.

Why are you having such a hard time admitting that legal definitions are common ground to all sides of a debate on ANY issue... let alone abortion?

Because the EFFECTIVE definition is soo much more important.

Heck, the effective definition is even a pretty decent talking point for pro lifers lol.

Maybe its because I heard the last man with a balanced budget say "it depends on what the meaning of is, is"? or whatever.

 

[Chuz Life]

Because the EFFECTIVE definition is soo much more important.

Heck, the effective definition is even a pretty decent talking point for pro lifers lol.

Maybe its because I heard the last man with a balanced budget say "it depends on what the meaning of is, is"? or whatever.

To YOU.

That is YOUR opinion, and your opinion (nor mine) is tantamount to "common ground."

 

[Toronado3800]

Because the EFFECTIVE definition is soo much more important.

Heck, the effective definition is even a pretty decent talking point for pro lifers lol.

Maybe its because I heard the last man with a balanced budget say "it depends on what the meaning of is, is"? or whatever.

To YOU.

That is YOUR opinion, and your opinion (nor mine) is tantamount to "common ground."

OK. I think we understand each other even if we disagree.

 

[Chuz Life]

Because the EFFECTIVE definition is soo much more important.

Heck, the effective definition is even a pretty decent talking point for pro lifers lol.

Maybe its because I heard the last man with a balanced budget say "it depends on what the meaning of is, is"? or whatever.

To YOU.

That is YOUR opinion, and your opinion (nor mine) is tantamount to "common ground."

OK. I think we understand each other even if we disagree.

I have never had any trouble understanding the abortion proponent viewpoint. After all, I used to be an abortion proponent myself.

 

[sakinago]

Opinions are not common ground.

Legal definitions ARE common ground.

Did you provide a LEGAL definition or a personal opinion?

Buddy, I provided you the complex effective legal definition a long time ago and talked about the inconsistencies.

The rest of the conversation seems rather like discussing what "cheating" is with a bad girlfriend.

You provided an opinion. Not a LEGAL source.

I felt it would either be condescending towards you for me to provide a legal source "proving" if you murder a pregnant woman in many states you are also charged with killing the fetus and a legal source saying abortion is legal or it would be.....odd.....for someone to demand legal links.

Debating what this or that dictionary or lawyer says just seems like word games compared to what law enforcement actually does.

Why are you having such a hard time admitting that legal definitions are common ground to all sides of a debate on ANY issue... let alone abortion?

Because the EFFECTIVE definition is soo much more important.

Heck, the effective definition is even a pretty decent talking point for pro lifers lol.

Maybe its because I heard the last man with a balanced budget say "it depends on what the meaning of is, is"? or whatever.

There already IS an effective definition with benchmarks for life extremely WIDLEY accepted in science. The only thing in question on what is or isn't life, is a virus, since it does not reproduce on its own, it has to take over another life form to do the reproducing for it.

 

[Whytee]

Chuz, when you are willing to admit that Roe V Wade was a religious decision... then you will wake up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just what the thread title says.

This thread is very simple. I am trying to identify and explore some of the common ground that should exist between all sides of the abortion debate.

I encourage those who want to participate to quote and post the LEGAL definitions they use to support their views.

‘What "is" the current legal definition for a "person?"’

As a settled and accepted fact of law recognized since before the advent of the Republic – a fact of law beyond dispute – one is a person only after he is born:

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."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

 

[sakinago]

Just what the thread title says.

This thread is very simple. I am trying to identify and explore some of the common ground that should exist between all sides of the abortion debate.

I encourage those who want to participate to quote and post the LEGAL definitions they use to support their views.

‘What "is" the current legal definition for a "person?"’

As a settled and accepted fact of law recognized since before the advent of the Republic – a fact of law beyond dispute – one is a person only after he is born:

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."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

A. 14th amendment speaks only to citizenship, and the "right to rights" as laid out in the constitution. In which you could be conceived in Italy, born in America, and be an American citizen. Now let's say your an illegal immigrant, by your standards, the 14th does not apply, so therefore you have no right to life?

B. Postnatal means after birth. So you agree that it's ok to terminate the day of birth, as long as it remains in the womb?

 

[Whytee]

Just what the thread title says.

This thread is very simple. I am trying to identify and explore some of the common ground that should exist between all sides of the abortion debate.

I encourage those who want to participate to quote and post the LEGAL definitions they use to support their views.

‘What "is" the current legal definition for a "person?"’

As a settled and accepted fact of law recognized since before the advent of the Republic – a fact of law beyond dispute – one is a person only after he is born:

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."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Hmm, and what religion states that? despite obvious biological facts?
Again, Roe V Wade was a religious decision.
A minority religious view, whom happen to profit from dead children... gets sway in the court.
Care to explain that shit missus jones?

 

[sakinago]

Just what the thread title says.

This thread is very simple. I am trying to identify and explore some of the common ground that should exist between all sides of the abortion debate.

I encourage those who want to participate to quote and post the LEGAL definitions they use to support their views.

‘What "is" the current legal definition for a "person?"’

As a settled and accepted fact of law recognized since before the advent of the Republic – a fact of law beyond dispute – one is a person only after he is born:

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."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Hmm, and what religion states that? despite obvious biological facts?
Again, Roe V Wade was a religious decision.
A minority religious view, whom happen to profit from dead children... gets sway in the court.
Care to explain that shit missus jones?

Ok what religion are you talking about?

 

[Chuz Life]

Why do we have legal dictionaries if the definitions within are meaningless in a debate?

 

[dblack]

Why do we have legal dictionaries if the definitions within are meaningless in a debate?

They're not meaningless. It's just that, often, what's being debated IS the definition - like in this case. The legal definition is, technically, up to the legislature and the courts. But we can all weigh in with our opinions. I assumed that was the point of the thread.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why do we have legal dictionaries if the definitions within are meaningless in a debate?

They're not meaningless. It's just that, often, what's being debated IS the definition - like in this case. The legal definition is, technically, up to the legislature and the courts. But we can all weigh in with our opinions. I assumed that was the point of the thread.

Let me get this right.

Are you saying the definition for "natural persons" in all our legal dictionaries is wrong? That it is still up for debate?

Or what?

 

[dblack]

Why do we have legal dictionaries if the definitions within are meaningless in a debate?

They're not meaningless. It's just that, often, what's being debated IS the definition - like in this case. The legal definition is, technically, up to the legislature and the courts. But we can all weigh in with our opinions. I assumed that was the point of the thread.

Let me get this right.

Are you saying the definition for "natural persons" in all our legal dictionaries is wrong? That it is still up for debate?

Yes. The law is always up for debate.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why do we have legal dictionaries if the definitions within are meaningless in a debate?

They're not meaningless. It's just that, often, what's being debated IS the definition - like in this case. The legal definition is, technically, up to the legislature and the courts. But we can all weigh in with our opinions. I assumed that was the point of the thread.

Let me get this right.

Are you saying the definition for "natural persons" in all our legal dictionaries is wrong? That it is still up for debate?

Yes. The law is always up for debate.

Then there never really is any common ground.

Is that right?

Why do we have legal dictionaries, if the definitions within are always "up for debate?"

 

[KokomoJojo]

natural person has flesh and blood, legal person is an artificial enitity
whats this about? lol

That's a good observation but what made you think anyone was making a comparison between the two?

and whats a poor observation is that I stated the dictionary definition without a direct quote and instead of recognizing the fact you pretended that what I said was a comparison and complemented the the poster who quoted the dictionary saying the same thing I did, bravo.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Why do we have legal dictionaries if the definitions within are meaningless in a debate?

They're not meaningless. It's just that, often, what's being debated IS the definition - like in this case. The legal definition is, technically, up to the legislature and the courts. But we can all weigh in with our opinions. I assumed that was the point of the thread.

Let me get this right.

Are you saying the definition for "natural persons" in all our legal dictionaries is wrong? That it is still up for debate?

Yes. The law is always up for debate.

Then there never really is any common ground.

Is that right?

Why do we have legal dictionaries, if the definitions within are always "up for debate?"

instead of inventing a new word to avoid confusion the legal industry prefers to slant words until the only meaning they have is what the gubmint wants them to have.

 

[sakinago]

Again science has a very widely excepted definition on life...why aren't we using that one? There's many who would call the right anti-science...so why are we all of a sudden suppose to be anti-science.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why do we have legal dictionaries if the definitions within are meaningless in a debate?

They're not meaningless. It's just that, often, what's being debated IS the definition - like in this case. The legal definition is, technically, up to the legislature and the courts. But we can all weigh in with our opinions. I assumed that was the point of the thread.

Let me get this right.

Are you saying the definition for "natural persons" in all our legal dictionaries is wrong? That it is still up for debate?

Yes. The law is always up for debate.

Then there never really is any common ground.

Is that right?

Why do we have legal dictionaries, if the definitions within are always "up for debate?"

There is no ‘debate.’

Again, prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not a person – this fact is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

In a religious or philosophical context, the debate continues – as so it should.

But in the context of the law there is no ‘debate.’

Indeed, the right to privacy, safeguarded by the Constitution, ensures that each person remains at liberty to determine for himself when life begins, and whether or not abortion is appropriate, in accordance with his own good conscience, absent unwarranted interference by government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Chuz, when you are willing to admit that Roe V Wade was a religious decision... then you will wake up.

Nonsense.

Roe is the progeny of Griswold and Eisenstadt, recognizing the Constitution’s guarantee to a right to privacy, to be free from government excess and overreach, and to restrict the states’ authority concerning personal matters, such as whether to have a child or not – a personal decision clearly not within the purview of government.