Abortion and the 14th Amendment - Just Who are Persons?

[Cassandro]

Surprisingly, discussions about abortion and the 14th Amendment may have a common thread: Just who are "persons"for the purpose of applying their provisions? According to current (mis)interpretation of the 14th Amendment, U.S. Congressional districts are apportioned according to the number of persons, rather than citizens, living in each district. (This means that the actual numbers of legal voters can vary widely between districts, thereby creating additional opportunities for gerrymandering.)

Similarly, discussions about abortion often involve the issue of when a fetus becomes a "person" with legal rights. This distinction seems analogous to that between illegal aliens and citizens in the U.S. Although these aliens and fetuses are "undocumented," there is no question of their existence and residence in this country. The only thing standing between them and full legal recognition is the necessary paperwork; either a "green card" or a U.S. birth certificate.

However, this analogy fails when it comes to government benefits. While illegal aliens are entitled to food, shelter and medical care, many fetuses are deprived of the same. Why is that? Aren't they both persons?

 

[protectionist]

Surprisingly, discussions about abortion and the 14th Amendment may have a common thread: Just who are "persons"for the purpose of applying their provisions? According to current (mis)interpretation of the 14th Amendment, U.S. Congressional districts are apportioned according to the number of persons, rather than citizens, living in each district. (This means that the actual numbers of legal voters can vary widely between districts, thereby creating additional opportunities for gerrymandering.)

Similarly, discussions about abortion often involve the issue of when a fetus becomes a "person" with legal rights. This distinction seems analogous to that between illegal aliens and citizens in the U.S. Although these aliens and fetuses are "undocumented," there is no question of their existence and residence in this country. The only thing standing between them and full legal recognition is the necessary paperwork; either a "green card" or a U.S. birth certificate.

However, this analogy fails when it comes to government benefits. While illegal aliens are entitled to food, shelter and medical care, many fetuses are deprived of the same. Why is that? Aren't they both persons?

Of course they are, and leftist screwballs who claim fetuses are not persons, are only interested in using abortion as a way of guaranteeing their ability to be sexually free, regardless of the ramifications, and who gets hurt (killed).

 

[Moonglow]

Of course they are, and leftist screwballs who claim fetuses are not persons, are only interested in using abortion as a way of guaranteeing their ability to be sexually free, regardless of the ramifications, and who gets hurt (killed).

How do you give personhood to a person that has not been born?

 

[protectionist]

How do you give personhood to a person that has not been born?

By calling them what they ARE. A person. Before and after birth.

 

[Moonglow]

By calling them what they ARE. A person. Before and after birth.

That is not personhood.

 

[Curried Goats]

By calling them what they ARE. A person. Before and after birth.

If they are independent persons recognize that our legal system doesn't allow another person to put their hands on another person without their consent, let alone gestate inside someone without their consent.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Surprisingly, discussions about abortion and the 14th Amendment may have a common thread: Just who are "persons"for the purpose of applying their provisions? According to current (mis)interpretation of the 14th Amendment, U.S. Congressional districts are apportioned according to the number of persons, rather than citizens, living in each district. (This means that the actual numbers of legal voters can vary widely between districts, thereby creating additional opportunities for gerrymandering.)

Similarly, discussions about abortion often involve the issue of when a fetus becomes a "person" with legal rights. This distinction seems analogous to that between illegal aliens and citizens in the U.S. Although these aliens and fetuses are "undocumented," there is no question of their existence and residence in this country. The only thing standing between them and full legal recognition is the necessary paperwork; either a "green card" or a U.S. birth certificate.

However, this analogy fails when it comes to government benefits. While illegal aliens are entitled to food, shelter and medical care, many fetuses are deprived of the same. Why is that? Aren't they both persons?

A reasonable point would be just after implantation of the fertilized egg which occurs usually between days 6-10.

The other key point is at the end of the first trimester when we have all our basic parts formed.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

How do you give personhood to a person that has not been born?

With the stroke of a pen via finding of the Supreme Court, the same way it was denied originally.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

If they are independent persons recognize that our legal system doesn't allow another person to put their hands on another person without their consent, let alone gestate inside someone without their consent.

Independence is irrelevant unless you plan to declare everyone on life support to be non persons or anyone else that requires a caregiver to survive.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

That is not personhood.

Personhood is a creation of the courts, redefining it by the courts would therefore be entirely proper.

 

[Curried Goats]

Independence is irrelevant unless you plan to declare everyone on life support to be non persons or anyone else that requires a caregiver to survive.

People on life support or receiving care from a caregiver are doing so by consent. My argument isn't at all that they are non persons. I'm willing to meet you there on the premise that they are independent people. What I'm questioning is when do independent people have a right to touch one another, let alone gestate in one another without consent? You can't even take my organs from me after I'm dead without my consent. Not even if they'd save multiple lives.

 

[Cassandro]

when do independent people have a right to touch one another, let alone gestate in one another without consent?

Consensual heterosexual intercourse.

 

[Curried Goats]

Consensual heterosexual intercourse.

I recognize you recognizing consenting to intercourse, what i don't see is you showing were they consented to pregnancy.

 

[basquebromance]

Republicans are NOT pro-life — they’re pro FORCED-BIRTH.

 

[scruffy]

That is not personhood.

******* dumbass liberal trying to redefine the English language. ^^^

AGAIN.

 

[scruffy]

Personhood is a creation of the courts, redefining it by the courts would therefore be entirely proper.

Exactly WRONG.

Personhood is defined in the Constitution.

 

[protectionist]

If they are independent persons recognize that our legal system doesn't allow another person to put their hands on another person without their consent, let alone gestate inside someone without their consent.

You think too much.

 

[protectionist]

People on life support or receiving care from a caregiver are doing so by consent. My argument isn't at all that they are non persons. I'm willing to meet you there on the premise that they are independent people. What I'm questioning is when do independent people have a right to touch one another, let alone gestate in one another without consent? You can't even take my organs from me after I'm dead without my consent. Not even if they'd save multiple lives.

Other than rape cases, women who have persons gestating inside of them, DO give consent. They gave it when they f-cked.

 

[protectionist]

I recognize you recognizing consenting to intercourse, what i don't see is you showing were they consented to pregnancy.

Maybe you missed a couple of biology classes. Consenting to intercourse, IS consenting to pregnancy. It's a package deal. Back to the 9th grade for you.

 

[protectionist]

Republicans are NOT pro-life — they’re pro FORCED-BIRTH.

SHOW how that has a shred of validity.