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

jwoodie

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2012
20,640
9,621
940
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?
 
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).
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top