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

[Valerie]

the womb is the business of the woman who owns it.

why do you seek big government jurisdiction in the wombs of strangers?

 

[Valerie]

privacy from government intrusion is a conservative ideal.

let the GOP free of your self righteous religious obsession, already...

 

[JoeMoma]

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 -

Parents Against Personhood? That just seems wrong.....kind of like being against puppies or happiness.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

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.

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.

Because you see conception as when a person becomes a person. Those that do not do not see a contradiction.

IOW, as I have said, not a constitutionality issue. It is an issue about when a human gains the rights of a person.

 

[FaerieGodfather]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A person is always a person, and a fetus is always a fetus.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

 

[FaerieGodfather]

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.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and even if she did consent to the pregnancy at one time, as the owner of the uterus she has the right to withdraw that consent at any time.

 

[MarathonMike]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[FaerieGodfather]

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.

If I recall correctly, the majority of women who seek abortions are mothers already.

 

[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.

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.

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]

"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.

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.

Figures the black shyster would be IGNORANT of U.S. law!

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act#cite_note-1

 

[JakeStarkey]

"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.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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."

 

[Vigilante]

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."

Mod edit - Someone forgot they were in the CDZ

 

[JakeStarkey]

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]

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.

ONLY A HUMAN CAN BE A VICTIM UNDER OUR PENAL SYSTEM, unless YOU WANT TO GO INTO animal abuse!

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

ONLY A HUMAN CAN BE A VICTIM UNDER OUR PENAL SYSTEM, unless YOU WANT TO GO INTO animal abuse!

No, fetuses, companies, animals, me, you can be victims of our penal system.

 

[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?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

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.

It is Fascist to hold the view that a child is not a child and not to be recognized as a person until it looks too much like a child and like a person to be denied as a person anymore.