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

[HandleTheTruth]

Person's was referring to women.

Because under commission n law in America women and children were property.

As far as I can figure.

A person is simply a human being. And from a scientific standpoint, it's an undeniable fact that the preborn baby is a human being, just in the earliest stages of life.

So you should be charged for murder because of miscarriages then. Correct.

 

[buttercup]

And as for murder, all carnivores murder to eat. Ever seen a pack of wild dogs in Africa eating a gazelle alive? Or they murder to take control of the pride. Lions will kill the children of the last dominant male to assert their control over the group. Nature doesn't care. You do. Stop hiding behind it you cowardly fuck.

So murder is OK, because lions and wild dogs do it? Alrighty then, Einstein.

I can see why we're losing our country. And hey, if that's how low we have sunk, then I can't say it's undeserved.

PS: If you're including humans with the carnivores who murder to eat, then I have to say, I agree with you on that, lol. Where we disagree of course is that as a vegan I believe it's wrong when humans do it, when it's entirely unnecessary. But that's another topic.

 

[Curried Goats]

So murder is OK, because lions and wild dogs do it? Alrighty then, Einstein.

Can you not read you dumbass? Murder and abortion are natural. That was a response to a poster claiming abortion was unnatural. Nothing that occurs in nature is unnatural. Whether murder is right or wrong is not something nature gives a shit about since those concepts are entirely human inventions.

I can see why we're losing our country. And hey, if that's how low we have sunk, then I can't say it's undeserved.

You're losing your country and your culture. Don't forget that part.

PS: If you're including humans with the carnivores who murder to eat, then I have to say, I agree with you on that, lol. Where we disagree of course is that as a vegan I believe it's wrong when humans do it, when it's entirely unnecessary. But that's another topic.

So you don't do it, what the fuck has your sentiment got to do with other people?

 

[buttercup]

Can you not read you dumbass? Murder and abortion are natural. That was a response to a poster claiming abortion was unnatural. Nothing that occurs in nature is unnatural. Whether murder is right or wrong is not something nature gives a shit about since those concepts are entirely human inventions.

That's one of the dumbest things I've heard on this topic in a very long time. Abortion is natural, because animals in nature kill to eat!

One could say that miscarriage is natural (an act of nature), but to say abortion is natural is laughable. But just goes to show the lengths you ghouls will go to, you'll bend over backwards to defend your indefensible position.

But the more important matter here is whether or not abortion is ethical or justified.

You said "nature" doesn't care. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the implication there seems to be that there's nothing wrong with murder. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so let me ask you: is murder wrong, yes or no?

 

[Curried Goats]

That's one of the dumbest things I've heard on this topic in a very long time. Abortion is natural, because animals in nature kill to eat!

That would be murder not abortion. Abortions also happen in nature and are therefor also natural.

One could say that miscarriage is natural (an act of nature), but to say abortion is natural is laughable. But just goes to show the lengths you ghouls will go to, you'll bend over backwards to defend your indefensible position.

Abortion is just a miscarriage with intent.

But the more important matter here is whether or not abortion is ethical or justified.

You said "nature" doesn't care. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the implication there seems to be that there's nothing wrong with murder. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so let me ask you: is murder wrong, yes or no?

Those comments were in response to a poster claiming abortion was unnatural and they should be read in that context only.

Is murder wrong? No. It's illegal and I believe it should be except in cases of self defense but right and wrong are imaginary concepts. They don't really exist.

Is abortion murder? I don't think it is unless the baby is viable.

 

[buttercup]

Is murder wrong? No. It's illegal and I believe it should be except in cases of self defense but right and wrong are imaginary concepts. They don't really exist.

I don't want to offend you, but again, statements like that make it easy to see why we're losing our country. And why people are so lost. They've been indoctrinated to believe lies, to the point where things end up being totally upside-down.

I don't want to get too off topic, but I will say this. The same people who claim that morality is imaginary will show that they don't actually believe that through their actions. Because when you're wronged, you'll object, of course. But why should you, if morality is subjective and doesn't actually exist? If that's the case, then you would have no right to object to anything anyone does, because their subjective opinion is just as right as yours. And logically, you have no leg to stand on when they (or the government, or anyone) wrongs you, because according to your own position, right and wrong don't exist. That, btw, makes all values meaningless. It makes things like love, kindness and compassion equal to hate, cruelty, exploitation, violence, etc. It makes an action like violent rape equal to an action like selfless love and mercy.... which everyone but a total sociopath intuitively knows is not true.

Moral subjectivism is an illogical, flawed idea, and that way of thinking is what leads to most of the evils in this world. I said I wasn't going to get into this topic, so I'll end this with a quote.

Guess who shares your view on morality? I'll let you guess who said these words.

"Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured it out for myself – what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself – that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any ‘reason’ to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring – the strength of character – to throw off its shackles…. I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others’? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a high’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’?​

​

In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me – after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self."​

 

[HandleTheTruth]

I don't want to offend you, but again, statements like that make it easy to see why we're losing our country. And why people are so lost. They've been indoctrinated to believe lies, to the point where things end up being totally upside-down.

I don't want to get too off topic, but I will say this. The same people who claim that morality is imaginary will show that they don't actually believe that through their actions. Because when you're wronged, you'll object, of course. But why should you, if morality is subjective and doesn't actually exist? If that's the case, then you would have no right to object to anything anyone does, because their subjective opinion is just as right as yours. And logically, you have no leg to stand on when they (or the government, or anyone) wrongs you, because according to your own position, right and wrong don't exist. That, btw, makes all values meaningless. It makes things like love, kindness and compassion equal to hate, cruelty, exploitation, violence, etc. It makes an action like violent rape equal to an action like selfless love and mercy.... which everyone but a total sociopath intuitively knows is not true.

Moral subjectivism is an illogical, flawed idea, and that way of thinking is what leads to most of the evils in this world. I said I wasn't going to get into this topic, so I'll end this with a quote.

Guess who shares your view on morality? I'll let you guess who said these words.

"Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured it out for myself – what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself – that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any ‘reason’ to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring – the strength of character – to throw off its shackles…. I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others’? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a high’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’?​

​

In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me – after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self."​

No morality is a obstruct of society. It has changed over time.

Sort of like women didn't have property rights and were mere property in the founding of this country.

Sort of like how slavery was once moral and now a days is immoral. It changes with time.


You can't ignore it.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

Morality has changed over the years and it's proven throughout history.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

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?

Well seeings as though women were not voters and blacks only just got the right to vote they were talking about men.

 

[Curried Goats]

I don't want to offend you, but again, statements like that make it easy to see why we're losing our country. And why people are so lost. They've been indoctrinated to believe lies, to the point where things end up being totally upside-down.

That's damn ironic. Right and wrong are Christian concepts and in order to believe in them you have to be indoctrinated in Judeo-Christian beliefs. I take an objective look at reality, not a religious one.

I don't want to get too off topic, but I will say this. The same people who claim that morality is imaginary will show that they don't actually believe that through their actions. Because when you're wronged, you'll object, of course. But why should you, if morality is subjective and doesn't actually exist? If that's the case, then you would have no right to object to anything anyone does, because their subjective opinion is just as right as yours.

Of course I object when people do something, especially to me, that I don't like. Those are individual feelings and they exist and we all have them. What doesn't exist are cosmic forces of right and wrong. The universe doesn't care if we murder each other.

And logically, you have no leg to stand on when they (or the government, or anyone) wrongs you, because according to your own position, right and wrong don't exist.

Nonsense. I would have a legal right to stand on. Laws and morality are also two different things.

That, btw, makes all values meaningless. It makes things like love, kindness and compassion equal to hate, cruelty, exploitation, violence, etc. It makes an action like violent rape equal to an action like selfless love and mercy.... which everyone but a total sociopath intuitively knows is not true.

Value is personal and subjective. To violent murderers and rapists those acts are as meaningful to them as love and kindness are to you and me.

Moral subjectivism is an illogical, flawed idea, and that way of thinking is what leads to most of the evils in this world. I said I wasn't going to get into this topic, so I'll end this with a quote.

Guess who shares your view on morality? I'll let you guess who said these words.

I don't actually give a shit. I care about what you can prove with logical and rational arguments, those don't include opinions. Can you prove objective morality exists?

 

[HandleTheTruth]

When the founders wrote all men are created equal.

Women didn't even figure in the equation.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

Now remember sixty years ago blacks were not considered equal or able to be equal on the field of sports. Morality changes with the times.

Hell when I was a kid you better not come out as gay or you might get killed.

 

[Natural Citizen]

That's one of the dumbest things I've heard on this topic in a very long time. Abortion is natural, because animals in nature kill to eat!

One could say that miscarriage is natural (an act of nature), but to say abortion is natural is laughable. But just goes to show the lengths you ghouls will go to, you'll bend over backwards to defend your indefensible position.

But the more important matter here is whether or not abortion is ethical or justified.

You said "nature" doesn't care. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the implication there seems to be that there's nothing wrong with murder. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so let me ask you: is murder wrong, yes or no?

It's kind of ironic that humans aren't really like the rest of nature.

Every other species on the planet exist and strives to insure the survival of the next generation.

Ever notice how ants can move in opposite directions in a single line and not even lose a beat?

But humans can't even merge in traffic without clogging everything up and crashing into each other and causing a five mile backup.

 

[buttercup]

It's kind of ironic that humans aren't really like the rest of nature.

Every other species on the planet exist and strives to ensure the survival of the next generation.

Ever notice how anta can move in opposite directions in a single line anot eve nlose a beat?

But humans can't even merge in trafic without clogging everything up and crashing into each other.

Good point. We think we’re the best, but imo we’ve really screwed up things in a monumental way. I think animals can teach us a thing or two.

 

[postman]

It's kind of ironic that humans aren't really like the rest of nature.

Every other species on the planet exist and strives to insure the survival of the next generation.

Actually heredity can be narcissistic

A coalition is a group of ousted male lions from another pride. Their main goal is to find a pride of females. When they do find a pride, they must first fight the existing males. If they succeed, the coalition then goes after the cubs. It is thought that the lions kill the cubs so the females will mate sooner and their genes will be carried forth.

 

[there4eyeM]

Humans are the victim of evolution. We developed big brains that gave us the capacity to do too many things before we acquired the wisdom to refrain.

 

[postman]

Humans are the victim of evolution. We developed big brains that gave us the capacity to do too many things before we acquired the wisdom to refrain.

Actually we're only partially evolved. We still need the primitive portions of the brain to keep us alive, when thinking about the situation would take too long.
Think of the "fight or flight" reaction. By the time you think it out logically, it's too late.

 

[postman]

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.)

They count persons instead of citizens, because we are a land of immigrants. And while non-citizens can't participate in the election process, they still as members of the community, require various governmental services, like roads, and post offices. Which are used by citizen and non=citizens on an equal basis.

 

[Blues Man]

Humans are the victim of evolution. We developed big brains that gave us the capacity to do too many things before we acquired the wisdom to refrain.

Maybe we just stop being victims to blind instinct

 

[jwoodie]

They count persons instead of citizens, because we are a land of immigrants. And while non-citizens can't participate in the election process, they still as members of the community, require various governmental services, like roads, and post offices. Which are used by citizen and non=citizens on an equal basis.

The 14th Amendment referred to "persons" because that term was used in the body of the Constitution to include 3/5 of slaves for the purposes of Congressional representation among the states. (The Constitution specifically excluded foreign diplomats and their families because they were not permanent legal residents.) The term "citizens" was not used because there were no citizens of the United States prior to ratification.

The 14th Amendment specifically repealed the 3/5 provision, using the same term ("persons") that was in the original text. There was no mention or intent to expand the representation criteria beyond this change.