CDZ A (US) discussion about Personhood and when it begins.

[Chuz Life]

Personhood is important and relevant to many debates because we are a nation governed by laws with the United States Constitution being the supreme law of the land and the constitutional basis for any other laws that are passed.

The word person is mentioned several times in our Constitution.

The 5th Amendment says; "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Note that the 5th Amendment uses the word "person" and not "citizen" in it's wording. That's because not all "persons" are citizens of the United States but all "persons" within the United States are entitled to this right.

Personhood Matters.

The 14th Amendment also mentions personhood and it says; "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Please pay close attention to the distinction the 14th Amendment is making between "citizens" (persons born or naturalized) and "persons" who are not "citizens" but have a right to their life, liberty, property, due process and the equal protection of our laws. . . be they a "citizen" or not.

That is what the Constitution says and that's why "personhood" matters.

It is clear and irrefutable that at the time the U.S. Constitution was written, it was not applied fairly nor equally to all "persons" in the United States. Slavery was still legal and was being upheld by our courts and women did not have equal rights to men.

Those injustices have been corrected over time and largely so because it is inarguable that women and African Americans are human beings. They are "persons."

The legal definition for what a natural person is - is simply "a human being."

That is a fairly inclusive definition. Is it not?

Likewise for the sections of the Constitution quoted above. Those are fairly inclusive statements too. Aren't they?

I would like for the discussions in this thread to stay close to the quotes and definitions above. This is not simply about abortion as most people agree that abortion can be debated either way. . . whether a prenatal child in the womb is legally recognized as a "person" or not.

Personhood is also an issue for illegal aliens and their rights while in the U.S. for example.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's a matter of opinion, nothing more.

 

[ScienceRocks]

20 weeks

 

[Agit8r]

Under current SCOTUS case law, it begins at incorporation.

 

[320 Years of History]

Personhood begins when a live human emerges from a human mother's womb. Prior to that point, the developing lifeform in the womb is nothing more than something that has the potential to be a person.

U.S. law grants elements of personhood to corporations. I think that can work but in granting some rights of personhood, the law fails to make corporations equally accountable for all aspects of being a person. Personhood is an "all or nothing" thing as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's a matter of opinion, nothing more.

Was it only a matter of opinion when women and African American's "personhood" rights were being debated?

 

[Chuz Life]

Personhood begins when a live human emerges from a human mother's womb. Prior to that point, the developing lifeform in the womb is nothing more than something that has the potential to be a person.

How do you reconcile that belief with the legal definitions which simply say a natural person his "a human being?"

Are you claiming that a prenatal child is not even a human being - until they emerge from the womb?

 

[320 Years of History]

Personhood begins when a live human emerges from a human mother's womb. Prior to that point, the developing lifeform in the womb is nothing more than something that has the potential to be a person.

How do you reconcile that belief with the legal definitions which simply say a natural person his "a human being?"

Are you claiming that a prenatal child is not even a human being - until they emerge from the womb?

Yes.

 

[Chuz Life]

Personhood begins when a live human emerges from a human mother's womb. Prior to that point, the developing lifeform in the womb is nothing more than something that has the potential to be a person.

How do you reconcile that belief with the legal definitions which simply say a natural person his "a human being?"

Are you claiming that a prenatal child is not even a human being - until they emerge from the womb?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you have any science / biological references to support your claim/ denial?

Anything?

 

[Muhammed]

20 weeks

Why not 19 weeks and 6 days?

 

[MarathonMike]

320 years, are you saying that at any point prior to delivery even at 9 months, the baby is not a person and the baby's life is not entitled to protection?

 

[Fishlore]

Personhood is a modern concept as it apples to the unborn. Traditional Christian teaching in this area is based on some well-known Biblical passages and a key concept that is fundamental to Christian teaching: the immortal soul created uniquely by God. Many Christians think "I have a soul" this is actually inaccurate. Christian tradition teaches "I am a soul; I have a body."

It is the immortal soul which is the key to the abortion issue. If the fetus has a soul, it is a human being for all eternity. If that human being dies unbaptized, e.g. a fetus with a soul is aborted, that human is damned for all eternity due to the sin of Adam. Harsh but universal Christian teaching from the earliest times.

So when does God create an immortal human soul within the fetus? Some Christians today believe this miracle occurs when the sperm enters the egg. Of course, no one thought this way until very modern times for the simple reason that no one understood what the sperm and egg were and how they interacted. The Bible is silent about the whole business.

What the Bible does tell us is the process whereby God created Adam. Adam was fashioned out of clay and when God breathed into him, he became alive. From this passage Christian teachers developed two different schedules for the creation of the immortal human soul.

The first declares the fetus a human being (i.e. an immortal soul) at the quickening, that is the point at which the fetus first moves independently in the uterus, i.e. is "alive". The second marks the point at the first breath of the baby on delivery from the mother, i.e. God's breath enters the baby.

Modern obstetrics provides more information about fetal development than anyone knew before. This information, of course, says nothing about the immortal soul. That is a purely spiritual concept and the authority is the Bible, not medical science. Christians who chose to do so are, of course, free to believe that the soul is created at conception; however, neither the Bible nor Church tradition claims this view.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's a matter of opinion, nothing more.

Was it only a matter of opinion when women and African American's "personhood" rights were being debated?

Fallacy of false derivative analogy. They were considered persons. Their rights as humans were being debated, not their personhood.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Under current SCOTUS case law, it begins at incorporation.

Do you mean "inception"? And give a link, please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Personhood begins when a live human emerges from a human mother's womb. Prior to that point, the developing lifeform in the womb is nothing more than something that has the potential to be a person.

How do you reconcile that belief with the legal definitions which simply say a natural person his "a human being?"

Are you claiming that a prenatal child is not even a human being - until they emerge from the womb?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you have any science / biological references to support your claim/ denial?

Anything?

Since it is your question, Chuz, do you have anything to support your claim or denial?

 

[Chuz Life]

It's a matter of opinion, nothing more.

Was it only a matter of opinion when women and African American's "personhood" rights were being debated?

Fallacy of false derivative analogy. They were considered persons. Their rights as humans were being debated, not their personhood.

You are wrong about that.

"Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ." - Supreme Court Decision Dred Scott

They were not recognized as "persons" equal to themselves under our Constitution.

 

[Chuz Life]

Personhood begins when a live human emerges from a human mother's womb. Prior to that point, the developing lifeform in the womb is nothing more than something that has the potential to be a person.

How do you reconcile that belief with the legal definitions which simply say a natural person his "a human being?"

Are you claiming that a prenatal child is not even a human being - until they emerge from the womb?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you have any science / biological references to support your claim/ denial?

Anything?

Since it is your question, Chuz, do you have anything to support your claim or denial?

You know I do.

Our Fetal Homicides (for one) which legally define "children in the womb" as "human beings" and make it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a criminal act.

Murder - by definition - is the criminal act of one PERSON killing another PERSON.

Isn't it?

 

[Tennyson]

There are three different type of personhood and they are not overlapping and when they do, it causes confusion regarding what is being argued: constitutional personhood, legal personhood, and moral personhood.

From a scientific point of view, especially from embryologists, a human being is created at conception.

 

[Chuz Life]

"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?