CDZ What "is" the current legal definition for a "person?"

[KokomoJojo]

Chuz, when you are willing to admit that Roe V Wade was a religious decision... then you will wake up.

Nonsense.

Roe is the progeny of Griswold and Eisenstadt, recognizing the Constitution’s guarantee to a right to privacy, to be free from government excess and overreach, and to restrict the states’ authority concerning personal matters, such as whether to have a child or not – a personal decision clearly not within the purview of government.

not true, you cant argue nonsense, the correct answer is both, it did both.

It was argued on a secular premise however when implemented trampled the religious rights of every dissenting person since refusing to perform an abortion is now sued out in the name of the cremee supremee decision and forced upon people and organizations at the end of a barrel of a gun, no different than baking gay wedding cakes under the guise of commercial US commercial law deprived the kliens of their rights and the gubmint religion declared bigamy a sin against daMobcracy.

The US da mobcracy IS an established religion.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Again science has a very widely excepted definition on life...why aren't we using that one? There's many who would call the right anti-science...so why are we all of a sudden suppose to be anti-science.

yes they gave you a false premise as you see here on these boards. It was never about 'when life begins', it was about when state recognition begins and the state refused to recognize a fetus since they cant draft up bonds against a fetus, (yet) after all it didnt have a birth cert did it, not until it hit the table crying. The whole argument is patently absurd and what hits the public is designed to confuse not settle anything like most the crap that the creemees produce for us.

 

[MaryL]

Just what the thread title says.

This thread is very simple. I am trying to identify and explore some of the common ground that should exist between all sides of the abortion debate.

I encourage those who want to participate to quote and post the LEGAL definitions they use to support their views.

Legal? Isn't abortion LEGAL? It's a done deal. Moral, that is a different question.I am little shady on either, I see how time and the tide of moral ethics wax and wane. The ethics of murder. I am good with both the death penalty and abortion. We all die. But we do need restraint and humility.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I am hoping that somebody (ANYBODY) can/ will post a LEGAL definition of a "person" that we can all agree is the LEGAL definition of person,

Is there one?

Why don't you post the legal definition?

And you might want to consider not posting the same thing over and over. You're looking to have the same "discussion" as always and it could take place in just one thread.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

What the USSC says it is.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Please post your own legal definition for what a natural person is. Provide the link as well.

And.... "if you don't know, just say so"

You are the one who said you knew lol. My reference is the Supreme Court Corporate Personhood thing. Besides the punishment laws I mentiomed earlier, I dunno what you consider the offical legal meaning. Sorry, I don't have the answer you need.

As I explained earlier, this thread is not about "corporate" personhood. It's about the current legal definition for what a "natural person" is.

Do you agree that regardless of what that definition is, it is common ground to all of us?

No.

No matter what your criteria or limitations, it's not "common ground" because your opinion will most certainly not be the same as the next person's. That's why we have laws. So you cannot force your opinion on others.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Chuz Life]

And now, yet another thread is completely off the rails from the op.

What's the use?

 

[KokomoJojo]

And now, yet another thread is completely off the rails from the op.

What's the use?

why dont you start with a 'specific' position you want to argue since most of us arent mind readers.

 

[sakinago]

Please post your own legal definition for what a natural person is. Provide the link as well.

And.... "if you don't know, just say so"

You are the one who said you knew lol. My reference is the Supreme Court Corporate Personhood thing. Besides the punishment laws I mentiomed earlier, I dunno what you consider the offical legal meaning. Sorry, I don't have the answer you need.

As I explained earlier, this thread is not about "corporate" personhood. It's about the current legal definition for what a "natural person" is.

Do you agree that regardless of what that definition is, it is common ground to all of us?

No.

No matter what your criteria or limitations, it's not "common ground" because your opinion will most certainly not be the same as the next person's. That's why we have laws. So you cannot force your opinion on others.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

How does one force an opinion on others through a message board. And how does laws prevent that from happening?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Please post your own legal definition for what a natural person is. Provide the link as well.

And.... "if you don't know, just say so"

You are the one who said you knew lol. My reference is the Supreme Court Corporate Personhood thing. Besides the punishment laws I mentiomed earlier, I dunno what you consider the offical legal meaning. Sorry, I don't have the answer you need.

As I explained earlier, this thread is not about "corporate" personhood. It's about the current legal definition for what a "natural person" is.

Do you agree that regardless of what that definition is, it is common ground to all of us?

No.

No matter what your criteria or limitations, it's not "common ground" because your opinion will most certainly not be the same as the next person's. That's why we have laws. So you cannot force your opinion on others.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

How does one force an opinion on others through a message board. And how does laws prevent that from happening?

If the gubmint perceives you as inciting others violence for instance or any number of other areas that freedom loving americans are not allowed to talk about, you may be prosecuted, or on some boards all it takes is to piss off a board owner (like mickey at mega bunk) with a contrary opinion, you may be banned from the forum.

 

[dblack]

Why do we have legal dictionaries if the definitions within are meaningless in a debate?

They're not meaningless. It's just that, often, what's being debated IS the definition - like in this case. The legal definition is, technically, up to the legislature and the courts. But we can all weigh in with our opinions. I assumed that was the point of the thread.

Let me get this right.

Are you saying the definition for "natural persons" in all our legal dictionaries is wrong? That it is still up for debate?

Yes. The law is always up for debate.

Then there never really is any common ground.

Is that right?

Why do we have legal dictionaries, if the definitions within are always "up for debate?"

Because the law requires explicit consensus. That doesn't mean we can't debate that legitimacy of that consensus, and change it through legislative action.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why do we have legal dictionaries if the definitions within are meaningless in a debate?

They're not meaningless. It's just that, often, what's being debated IS the definition - like in this case. The legal definition is, technically, up to the legislature and the courts. But we can all weigh in with our opinions. I assumed that was the point of the thread.

Let me get this right.

Are you saying the definition for "natural persons" in all our legal dictionaries is wrong? That it is still up for debate?

Yes. The law is always up for debate.

Then there never really is any common ground.

Is that right?

Why do we have legal dictionaries, if the definitions within are always "up for debate?"

Because the law requires explicit consensus. That doesn't mean we can't debate that legitimacy of that consensus, and change it through legislative action.

Unless and until or legal definitions change, they are in fact considered to be "common ground."

True or false?

 

[KokomoJojo]

They're not meaningless. It's just that, often, what's being debated IS the definition - like in this case. The legal definition is, technically, up to the legislature and the courts. But we can all weigh in with our opinions. I assumed that was the point of the thread.

Let me get this right.

Are you saying the definition for "natural persons" in all our legal dictionaries is wrong? That it is still up for debate?

Yes. The law is always up for debate.

Then there never really is any common ground.

Is that right?

Why do we have legal dictionaries, if the definitions within are always "up for debate?"

Because the law requires explicit consensus. That doesn't mean we can't debate that legitimacy of that consensus, and change it through legislative action.

Unless and until or legal definitions change, they are in fact considered to be "common ground."

True or false?

more like precedent [judicial] opinion.

 

[Chuz Life]

Let me get this right.

Are you saying the definition for "natural persons" in all our legal dictionaries is wrong? That it is still up for debate?

Yes. The law is always up for debate.

Then there never really is any common ground.

Is that right?

Why do we have legal dictionaries, if the definitions within are always "up for debate?"

Because the law requires explicit consensus. That doesn't mean we can't debate that legitimacy of that consensus, and change it through legislative action.

Unless and until or legal definitions change, they are in fact considered to be "common ground."

True or false?

more like precedent [judicial] opinion.

Both have to work with the same definition, regardless. True or false?

 

[dblack]

They're not meaningless. It's just that, often, what's being debated IS the definition - like in this case. The legal definition is, technically, up to the legislature and the courts. But we can all weigh in with our opinions. I assumed that was the point of the thread.

Let me get this right.

Are you saying the definition for "natural persons" in all our legal dictionaries is wrong? That it is still up for debate?

Yes. The law is always up for debate.

Then there never really is any common ground.

Is that right?

Why do we have legal dictionaries, if the definitions within are always "up for debate?"

Because the law requires explicit consensus. That doesn't mean we can't debate that legitimacy of that consensus, and change it through legislative action.

Unless and until or legal definitions change, they are in fact considered to be "common ground."

True or false?

For legal purposes, yes. But it's perfectly valid to question them.

 

[Chuz Life]

This is like herding cats. It's clear you don't like the legal definition for what a natural person is, but it is what it is.

Do you honestly think you are going to change it?

 

[KokomoJojo]

This is like herding cats. It's clear you don't like the legal definition for what a natural person is, but it is what it is.

Do you honestly think you are going to change it?

I know what you are trying to drive at here, and I wish it were true, however for the defacto usage, the court establishes a baseline definition, however take the word allodial for instance, means property ownership outside state jurisdiction, at least until someone did it in nevada where the court said great you can have your allodial but you are still going to pay the property taxes, hence totally gutted the meaning of allodial, so what does allodial mean now?

So I am not sure what you are trying to do with this thread, and as far as the definition goes I dont care one way or the other however no one in this country has the rights of a natural person with the exception being seen through da gubmints eyes. Not the way it should be but its the way it is. So state your position.

 

[Chuz Life]

My position is that the legal definition for what a natural person is - is common ground for all sides of the abortion debate.

 

[Toronado3800]

This is like herding cats. It's clear you don't like the legal definition for what a natural person is, but it is what it is.

Do you honestly think you are going to change it?

There are more efficient ways of trying to encourage people to vote anti-abortion than beating this to death.

I almost want to help you just to move things along.

Heck, I will. Got any instances where an unfortunate gal had an abortion legally then months later was assaulted and lost a child and the "assaulter" was punished? Post it! While I have no problem with what on the surface seems like an inconsistency some will no doubt.

 

[KokomoJojo]

well now we know his position