Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

[Coyote]

1 U.S. Code § 8.“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

 

[progressive hunter]

1 U.S. Code § 8.“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

are you ever going to provide one example of a negative from our previous discussion???

you said there are many but have yet to provide one actual one,,,

 

[Coyote]

1 U.S. Code § 8.“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

are you ever going to provide one example of a negative from our previous discussion???

you said there are many but have yet to provide one actual one,,,

I did.

If a woman is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, that is enslavement.

 

[progressive hunter]

1 U.S. Code § 8.“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

are you ever going to provide one example of a negative from our previous discussion???

you said there are many but have yet to provide one actual one,,,

I did.

If a woman is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, that is enslavement.

sad that you think being a parent is slavery,,,if she doesnt want to get pregnant she should have been on the pill or not had sex,,,

but you said there are many reasons,,,
got another one that makes sense

 

[luchitociencia]

Off topic posts from all sides have been reported.

Why is it so hard to stay on topic?

The example analogy used by you about declaring blacks a "no person" in order to restore slavery was -as noticed as well by other(s)- was a nonsensical idea in order to keep such a message on topic. How hard was for you to included that message of yours to be removed as well?

About the "definition of "person", according to the law, which rules on the land, the Act of Congress Section 8 has established the parameters for that purpose.

Perhaps a "new congress" might edit it, but up to today, in court, such is the condition to be played.

Following your analogy/case presented by you, the hypothetical out come could be the value as a "living being" of humans in their developing status inside the womb, if they qualify for having constitutional rights.

Definitively an individual who was born, by law, is declared a "person" regardless of his current condition as being free or a slave.

About situations where laws defend life of humans in developing status while other laws concede their killing, such is not uncommon when constitutional means are applied.

Contradictions and vacuum have been found in the Constitution.

For example, lets use an analogy:

You opening an envelope that was not addressed to you and that was delivered by the Post Office, such action has clear established penalties. But if the same envelop was delivered by a private delivery company, do the same laws apply? If yes, do they have constitutional back up?

There are laws which apply to daily life that won't need any constitutional back up.

Then, when you open an envelop from someone, an envelop delivered by a private carrier, and you have a court case against you, the applied penalty can be the same as if you have opened mail delivered by the Post Office, but the Constitution won't be used as the base foundation for the judge decision.

Even if the years in prison or the amount of dollars against you are stipulated with same degree as if you committed the fault opening mail delivered by the Post Office, the Constitution has not been applied anyways.

Neither side can use the Constitution in this case.

My opinion is that laws, when in reference to human life, must be based not solely in the social aspect but must be also based on the biological aspect.

We are 200 years after the writing of the Constitution and more accurate knowledge has been reached. It is essential to make new laws or modify the current ones in accord to the updated knowledge of what a human being is.

An unborn child still is "human", and here is where the conflict starts, when one side recognizes it as a human being while the other side denies it.

 

[Coyote]

1 U.S. Code § 8.“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

are you ever going to provide one example of a negative from our previous discussion???

you said there are many but have yet to provide one actual one,,,

I did.

If a woman is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, that is enslavement.

sad that you think being a parent is slavery,,,if she doesnt want to get pregnant she should have been on the pill or not had sex,,,

but you said there are many reasons,,,
got another one that makes sense

Forced pregnancies are enslavement. And this is uniquely applied to women.

Other negatives: there can be no exceptions for incest, rape, or the mothers life.

 

[Coyote]

Off topic posts from all sides have been reported.

Why is it so hard to stay on topic?

The example analogy used by you about declaring blacks a "no person" in order to restore slavery was -as noticed as well by other(s)- was a nonsensical idea in order to keep such a message on topic. How hard was for you to included that message of yours to be removed as well?

About the "definition of "person", according to the law, which rules on the land, the Act of Congress Section 8 has established the parameters for that purpose.

Perhaps a "new congress" might edit it, but up to today, in court, such is the condition to be played.

Following your analogy/case presented by you, the hypothetical out come could be the value as a "living being" of humans in their developing status inside the womb, if they qualify for having constitutional rights.

Definitively an individual who was born, by law, is declared a "person" regardless of his current condition as being free or a slave.

About situations where laws defend life of humans in developing status while other laws concede their killing, such is not uncommon when constitutional means are applied.

Contradictions and vacuum have been found in the Constitution.

For example, lets use an analogy:

You opening an envelope that was not addressed to you and that was delivered by the Post Office, such action has clear established penalties. But if the same envelop was delivered by a private delivery company, do the same laws apply? If yes, do they have constitutional back up?

There are laws which apply to daily life that won't need any constitutional back up.

Then, when you open an envelop from someone, an envelop delivered by a private carrier, and you have a court case against you, the applied penalty can be the same as if you have opened mail delivered by the Post Office, but the Constitution won't be used as the base foundation for the judge decision.

Even if the years in prison or the amount of dollars against you are stipulated with same degree as if you committed the fault opening mail delivered by the Post Office, the Constitution has not been applied anyways.

Neither side can use the Constitution in this case.

My opinion is that laws, when in reference to human life, must be based not solely in the social aspect but must be also based on the biological aspect.

We are 200 years after the writing of the Constitution and more accurate knowledge has been reached. It is essential to make new laws or modify the current ones in accord to the updated knowledge of what a human being is.

An unborn child still is "human", and here is where the conflict starts, when one side recognizes it as a human being while the other side denies it.

Add to that conflict: there are two fundamental sets of rights here.

 

[progressive hunter]

1 U.S. Code § 8.“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

are you ever going to provide one example of a negative from our previous discussion???

you said there are many but have yet to provide one actual one,,,

I did.

If a woman is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, that is enslavement.

sad that you think being a parent is slavery,,,if she doesnt want to get pregnant she should have been on the pill or not had sex,,,

but you said there are many reasons,,,
got another one that makes sense

Forced pregnancies are enslavement. And this is uniquely applied to women.

Other negatives: there can be no exceptions for incest, rape, or the mothers life.

your excuses are pathetic,,,the only one that forced her to be pregnant is her other than in the case of rape,,,even then its still her child and it is innocent,,,

face it your just another pathetic baby killer,,,

 

[Chuz Life]

Neither side can use the Constitution in this case.

Bullshit. All side MUST use and adhere to the Constitution. Always (when making laws.)

My opinion is that laws, when in reference to human life, must be based not solely in the social aspect but must be also based on the biological aspect.

I have no problem with that, except I think it is the other way around. the Biological facts are STATIC. Biological facts are not ever changing in the way that Social aspects are.

We are 200 years after the writing of the Constitution and more accurate knowledge has been reached. It is essential to make new laws or modify the current ones in accord to the updated knowledge of what a human being is.

I have never once indicated otherwise.

An unborn child still is "human"

And that biological fact is TRUE, regardless of Societal wants, needs or arguments of inconvenience.

Agree?

and here is where the conflict starts, when one side recognizes it as a human being while the other side denies it.

Wrong.

As I indicated in the poll and in the OP. The Conflict is (presently) when and where the Government recognizes and defines a s "child in the womb" as a "person" in one law, for one set of circumstances (i.e. Fetal HOMICIDE laws) and then DENIES the "child in the womb" is a "person" (denies them their Constitutional rights in all other circumstances) in that very same law.

THAT is the conflict and that is supposed to be what this thread is about.

 

[Coyote]

1 U.S. Code § 8.“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

are you ever going to provide one example of a negative from our previous discussion???

you said there are many but have yet to provide one actual one,,,

I did.

If a woman is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, that is enslavement.

sad that you think being a parent is slavery,,,if she doesnt want to get pregnant she should have been on the pill or not had sex,,,

but you said there are many reasons,,,
got another one that makes sense

Forced pregnancies are enslavement. And this is uniquely applied to women.

Other negatives: there can be no exceptions for incest, rape, or the mothers life.

your excuses are pathetic,,,the only one that forced her to be pregnant is her other than in the case of rape,,,even then its still her child and it is innocent,,,

face it your just another pathetic baby killer,,,

Exactly. Like I said. You would rather kill the woman.

 

[Coyote]

Neither side can use the Constitution in this case.

Bullshit. All side MUST use and adhere to the Constitution. Always (when making laws.)

My opinion is that laws, when in reference to human life, must be based not solely in the social aspect but must be also based on the biological aspect.

I have no problem with that, except I think it is the other way around. the Biological facts are STATIC. Biological facts are not ever changing in the way that Social aspects are.

We are 200 years after the writing of the Constitution and more accurate knowledge has been reached. It is essential to make new laws or modify the current ones in accord to the updated knowledge of what a human being is.

I have never once indicated otherwise.

An unborn child still is "human"

And that biological fact is TRUE, regardless of Societal wants, needs or arguments of inconvenience.

Agree?

and here is where the conflict starts, when one side recognizes it as a human being while the other side denies it.

Wrong.

As I indicated in the poll and in the OP. The Conflict is (presently) when and where the Government recognizes and defines a s "child in the womb" as a "person" in one law, for one set of circumstances (i.e. Fetal HOMICIDE laws) and then DENIES the "child in the womb" is a "person" (denies them their Constitutional rights in all other circumstances) in that very same law.

THAT is the conflict and that is supposed to be what this thread is about.

Wrong.

The conflict is who’s rights are paramount. if is a conflict of rights to one person’s body who’s rights you consider less than.

 

[Chuz Life]

Neither side can use the Constitution in this case.

Bullshit. All side MUST use and adhere to the Constitution. Always (when making laws.)

My opinion is that laws, when in reference to human life, must be based not solely in the social aspect but must be also based on the biological aspect.

I have no problem with that, except I think it is the other way around. the Biological facts are STATIC. Biological facts are not ever changing in the way that Social aspects are.

We are 200 years after the writing of the Constitution and more accurate knowledge has been reached. It is essential to make new laws or modify the current ones in accord to the updated knowledge of what a human being is.

I have never once indicated otherwise.

An unborn child still is "human"

And that biological fact is TRUE, regardless of Societal wants, needs or arguments of inconvenience.

Agree?

and here is where the conflict starts, when one side recognizes it as a human being while the other side denies it.

Wrong.

As I indicated in the poll and in the OP. The Conflict is (presently) when and where the Government recognizes and defines a s "child in the womb" as a "person" in one law, for one set of circumstances (i.e. Fetal HOMICIDE laws) and then DENIES the "child in the womb" is a "person" (denies them their Constitutional rights in all other circumstances) in that very same law.

THAT is the conflict and that is supposed to be what this thread is about.

Wrong.

The conflict is who’s rights are paramount. if is a conflict of rights to one person’s body who’s rights you consider less than.

Wrong.

But you are certainly welcome to try that argument in court.

The court will inevitably rule that to any extent that a woman's rights are compromised by her pregnancy, UNLESS SHE WAS RAPED, She compromised her rights and her "autonomy" herself.

It is noteworthy that your claim here was not even introduced or considered during the back and forth arguments in Roe.

Listen.

 

[progressive hunter]

1 U.S. Code § 8.“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

are you ever going to provide one example of a negative from our previous discussion???

you said there are many but have yet to provide one actual one,,,

I did.

If a woman is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, that is enslavement.

sad that you think being a parent is slavery,,,if she doesnt want to get pregnant she should have been on the pill or not had sex,,,

but you said there are many reasons,,,
got another one that makes sense

Forced pregnancies are enslavement. And this is uniquely applied to women.

Other negatives: there can be no exceptions for incest, rape, or the mothers life.

your excuses are pathetic,,,the only one that forced her to be pregnant is her other than in the case of rape,,,even then its still her child and it is innocent,,,

face it your just another pathetic baby killer,,,

Exactly. Like I said. You would rather kill the woman.

when did I say to kill the women???
if its proven her life is in danger then of course its needed,,
but modern medicine has almost totally eliminated that,,,

your spinning on this to kill a child is all I need to know about you,,,

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Terminology For The Gullible "

* Feigning Esoteric Conjectures As Valid Legal Precedence *

A fetus does not have constitutional protections and any offense against a pregnant woman is an offense against the private property of the mother , which can include elevated penalties appropriate for the crime as occurs with any number of charges for special circumstance .

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.

 

[Chuz Life]

" Terminology For The Gullible "

* Feigning Esoteric Conjectures As Valid Legal Precedence *

A fetus does not have constitutional protections and any offense against a pregnant woman is an offense against the private property of the mother , which can include elevated penalties appropriate for the crime as occurs with any number of charges for special circumstance .

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.

Worst / best example of reading comprehension FAIL of all time.

Would you like to quote the exact language of the law and correct yourself? Or would you like for me to do that?

 

[Coyote]

Neither side can use the Constitution in this case.

Bullshit. All side MUST use and adhere to the Constitution. Always (when making laws.)

My opinion is that laws, when in reference to human life, must be based not solely in the social aspect but must be also based on the biological aspect.

I have no problem with that, except I think it is the other way around. the Biological facts are STATIC. Biological facts are not ever changing in the way that Social aspects are.

We are 200 years after the writing of the Constitution and more accurate knowledge has been reached. It is essential to make new laws or modify the current ones in accord to the updated knowledge of what a human being is.

I have never once indicated otherwise.

An unborn child still is "human"

And that biological fact is TRUE, regardless of Societal wants, needs or arguments of inconvenience.

Agree?

and here is where the conflict starts, when one side recognizes it as a human being while the other side denies it.

Wrong.

As I indicated in the poll and in the OP. The Conflict is (presently) when and where the Government recognizes and defines a s "child in the womb" as a "person" in one law, for one set of circumstances (i.e. Fetal HOMICIDE laws) and then DENIES the "child in the womb" is a "person" (denies them their Constitutional rights in all other circumstances) in that very same law.

THAT is the conflict and that is supposed to be what this thread is about.

Wrong.

The conflict is who’s rights are paramount. if is a conflict of rights to one person’s body who’s rights you consider less than.

Wrong.

But you are certainly welcome to try that argument in court.

The court will inevitably rule that to any extent that a woman's rights are compromised by her pregnancy, UNLESS SHE WAS RAPED, She compromised her rights and her "autonomy" herself.

It is noteworthy that your claim here was not even introduced or considered during the back and forth arguments in Roe.

Listen.

No. Rape would not be an exception.

Not if you were to be internally consistent.

You are granting complete personhood and rights to a fetus. It's rights would be equal to the rights of the body it is growing in. There is no partway in this.

Just because a woman is raped doesn't mean the death penalty for the fetus.

Nor does incest, even if the host were an 11 yr child.

It's real tricky if the mother's life is in danger - you have two equal sets of rights. It doesn't matter how the courts rule NOW - because a fetus does not have equal rights to the mother NOW. You are proposing completely changing that.

Have at it.

 

[Chuz Life]

No. Rape would not be an exception.

Not if you were to be internally consistent.

Sometimes, even to the chagrin of my fellow anti-aborts, my views are steadfast and consistent with the exact wording of the Constitution.

You are granting complete personhood and rights to a fetus. It's rights would be equal to the rights of the body it is growing in. There is no partway in this.

Your ignorance is showing, again and you are illustrating the very ignorance that persists even in our government that this thread is about.

"Personhood" and basic human rights are not things that are "granted" to human beings by others in society, nor by the fucking government.

The sooner you can learn and appreciate that fact, the sooner you will start to see your ignorance for what it is.

Just because a woman is raped doesn't mean the death penalty for the fetus. Nor does incest, even if the host were an 11 yr child.

The rape exception is something I am ready and willing to debate at any time, IN SOME OTHER THREAD

If you want to debate the rape exceptions?

START ANOTHER THREAD on THAT topic.

Hell, challenge me to a debate on it and put a poll at the top of the page.

That would be very productive.

It's real tricky if the mother's life is in danger - you have two equal sets of rights. It doesn't matter how the courts rule NOW - because a fetus does not have equal rights to the mother NOW. You are proposing completely changing that.
Have at it.

Start the thread.

 

[OldBiologist]

true but thats it,,,they cant make laws or decisions beyond that,,,

that aside a law can still be unconstitutional without their ruling,,,

If a law has not been ruled unconstitutional, or whatever the term or process is, then that law is deemed constitutional. I'm not a Yank and I know that. It may well be that it doesn't take the USSC to rule legislation unconstitutional, other courts may do so. Even so.

Correct.

Laws are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise; and the Supreme Court has ruled that laws which compel women to give birth against their will are in fact un-Constitutional.

I don’t know what the actual legal position is on that but I disagree with that sentiment. If a law has not been brought before the SCOTUS, it is a law but there exists no ruling one way or the other on whether it is constitutional. The public is obliged to obey the law at risk of punishment by our overlords. Someone with standing may challenge a law and, if it is granted cert, only then do we have a basis for saying whether a law is constitutional or not. The SCOTUS has at times reversed itself, so even something that was once constitutional it might one day no longer be so. Until the court makes a ruling, we’re all just following the law handed to us.

OP, congrats and respect on being one of the few people to even make a distinction between “human being” and “person”. I often don’t even bother with threads concerning the topic because I’ve grown weary of trying to explain.

It is clear a line needs to be drawn somewhere but I am going to have to leave that to people more clever than I am. Regardless of where it is though, you are absolutely right they need to be consistent, otherwise laws are arbitrary and situational and mean nothing.

 

[Levant]

Can you provide a link where the Supreme Court actually makes THAT specific declaration?

All legislation is deemed constitutional until the USSC rules otherwise. Therefore if legislation exists where a position is had both ways, it is deemed constitutional. The USSC gets to decide.

Where does it say that all legislation is deemed constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise? Deemed by whom? Certainly not by the lower courts or even juries, many of each have ruled based on their own understanding of the Constitution.

When the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional (which is their opinion and not necessarily fact) then the opinion is retroactive to the passing of the law. The law was, from passing legislation, unconstitutional. And yet, even the Supreme Court's ruling doesn't mean everyone convicted under such a law is released; they have to go back to court.

There's simply no law, no ruling, nothing in the Constitution, and nothing in legal jurisprudence that supports your claim. Or maybe I'm wrong... Prove it.

 

[Levant]

I don’t know what the actual legal position is on that but I disagree with that sentiment. If a law has not been brought before the SCOTUS, it is a law but there exists no ruling one way or the other on whether it is constitutional. The public is obliged to obey the law at risk of punishment by our overlords. Someone with standing may challenge a law and, if it is granted cert, only then do we have a basis for saying whether a law is constitutional or not. The SCOTUS has at times reversed itself, so even something that was once constitutional it might one day no longer be so. Until the court makes a ruling, we’re all just following the law handed to us.

OP, congrats and respect on being one of the few people to even make a distinction between “human being” and “person”. I often don’t even bother with threads concerning the topic because I’ve grown weary of trying to explain.

It is clear a line needs to be drawn somewhere but I am going to have to leave that to people more clever than I am. Regardless of where it is though, you are absolutely right they need to be consistent, otherwise laws are arbitrary and situational and mean nothing.

The Court doesn't rule on the constitutionality of a law. They give an opinion and their opinion is binding on the case before them only. Their opinion sets precedent in that lower courts understand that any appeal of their own rulings will likely get the same response from the Supreme Court so the lower courts follow the opinion of the Supreme Court - until a lower court has the courage to challenge a previous Supreme Court opinion and either gets overturned by the Court or, as happens often enough to prove that the Court is absolutely not the perfectly reliable interpreter of the Constitution, the Court overturns itself.

Unconstitutionality is not at all determined by the Court. It is determined by whether or not a law is in compliance with the Constitution.