CDZ Why President Trump will have no 'Choice' but to ban Abortion.

If personhood begins at conception, elective abortions must be banned.

  • Yes. Because the Constitution protects the rights of ALL persons, equally

  • No. The Constitution allows for us to deny personhood to keep abortions legal


Results are only viewable after voting.

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Jun 18, 2015
9,154
3,607
345
USA
First of all, let's be clear. It is understood that the President alone does not have the power nor the authority to "ban abortion" on their own. Please don't read too far into the title of this thread.

That said, on inauguration day, January 20, 2017 - When President Elect Donald Trump is sworn in as the President of the United States, he will "swear or affirm that he "will to the best of [his] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of our land. What it says matters not only to the "pro-choice" arguments surrounding abortion but to the "pro-life" side of the issue as well.

The Constitution's 5th and 14th Amendments state clearly that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws and that no "person" can be "deprived of their life" without due process of law.

When Roe v Wade was being decided, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said; "the basic Constitutional question, initially, is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it? That’s critical to this case, is it not?"

To which the pro-abortion lawyer, Sarah Weddington responded; "Yes, it is."

Justice Potter Stewart continued; "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?"

And Sarah Weddington responded again, saying; "I would have a very difficult case."

All sides have agreed from the start that the Constitution and "personhood" are key components in the abortion debate.

Of course, we all know that the Supreme Court ruled in their 7-2 decision - that "All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

However, The Supreme Court did recognize even in Roe that; "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument."

The Supreme Court of the United States is very sensitive to the "personhood" aspect of the abortion issue.

During Oral Arguments, Justice Potter Stewart commented; "Well, if---if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, with the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here,would you not?"

MRS. WEDDINGTON responded: "I would have a very difficult case."

The question becomes; "What (if anything) has changed in the way of establishing the "personhood" of children in the womb - in the four decades following the Roe v Wade decision?

The most obvious answer to that question is found in the language and in the upheld convictions of our nations many "Fetal Homicide" laws.

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia;and>Wisconsin>. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Forty Three Years after Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart speculated that a State or State's "could" establish "personhood" for children in the womb, the Federal Government and nearly Forty States have already passed laws which essentially do exactly that.

As Gloria Feldt, the former President of Planned Parenthood said herself; "If they are able to make fetuses people in law with the same standing as women and men, then Roe will be moot."

The Oath of office that President (elect) Trump will be taking soon, on January 20th, 2017 will not leave room for anything less!
 
Politically it would be great for the Democrats if Trump did open this can of worms.

Do you feel the oath of the office allows for the President to dismiss matters as serious as this for political expediency?
 
Being that abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written, it's very clear the founders did not consider fetuses to be people.

But then, when has the right ever cared about original intent?
 
Politically it would be great for the Democrats if Trump did open this can of worms.

Do you feel the oath of the office allows for the President to dismiss matters as serious as this for political expediency?

A woman’s right to privacy? I don’t think the oath of office allows the President to usurp the doctor/patient confidentiality.
 
Being that abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written, it's very clear the founders did not consider fetuses to be people.

But then, when has the right ever cared about original intent?


When the Constitution was written, full grown slaves were not Constitutionally recognized as equal "persons" either.

CZMngEyUAAAoJsv.jpg:large


One can easily argue that the original "intent" was never to exclude ANY human beings of any age, race, creed or stage of life from their personhood protections - despite the fact that they got it wrong with regards to slaves and in other areas.
 
Last edited:
Politically it would be great for the Democrats if Trump did open this can of worms.

Do you feel the oath of the office allows for the President to dismiss matters as serious as this for political expediency?

A woman’s right to privacy? I don’t think the oath of office allows the President to usurp the doctor/patient confidentiality.

Does anyone have the right to violate the Constitutional rights of another human being / Person and to shield that violation behind a so called "right to privacy?(sic)"

I, for one, don't think they do.
 
Does anyone have the right to violate the Constitutional rights of another human being / Person and to shield that violation behind a so called "right to privacy?(sic)"

I, for one, don't think they do.
So you are against deporting illegals? Even minor children with no other place to go?
 
If personhood begins at conception, elective abortions must be banned.
What if personhood doesn't begin until a specific stage of development such as when the cerebrum becomes active?

That debate can be had again and again, I suppose. However, it's worth nothing that our fetal homicide laws which I cited earlier, already make it a crime of MURDER to kill a child in the womb in ANY stage of life / development - during a criminal act.

And I don't see anyone trying to overturn the precedent set in those laws.
 
Does anyone have the right to violate the Constitutional rights of another human being / Person and to shield that violation behind a so called "right to privacy?(sic)"

I, for one, don't think they do.
So you are against deporting illegals? Even minor children with no other place to go?

I have no problem with deportation when those being deported are "illegals / criminals" so long as "due process" is being followed.

Do you?
 
That debate can be had again and again, I suppose. However, it's worth nothing that our fetal homicide laws which I cited earlier, already make it a crime of MURDER to kill a child in the womb in ANY stage of life / development - during a criminal act.

And I don't see anyone trying to overturn the precedent set in those laws.
We can certainly agree our laws are a convoluted mess. Nonetheless, you are not addressing the question I asked regarding personhood. If you'd prefer not to answer, I understand.
 
Being that abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written, it's very clear the founders did not consider fetuses to be people.

But then, when has the right ever cared about original intent?
it's very clear the founders did not consider fetuses to be people.
Nor did they consider slaves and women to be people.

Wonder when that will change?
 
I have no problem with deportation when those being deported are "illegals / criminals" so long as "due process" is being followed.

Do you?
So a person isn't a person when they are a XXXX illegal Mexican? What if the Mexican is pregnant, still not a person?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems like you forgot that linking to other message board sites is strictly verboten hier.

If you have arguments, even if already made in the past, make them here. Might start with the premise in the first five words of your poll --- upon which the Church in its history has much vacillated depending on what gave it sociopolitical advantage at the time.

Your poll btw is impossible to vote in, because it assumes a premise you haven't established.
 
I am prepared to debate the origins of "personhood" anytime you like.

If you are interested in any of my past debates on the subject, Here you go: " Debate: A human being in the Zygote, Embryo and Fetal stage of their life is "a human being" | Debate.org "
Translation: I refuse to answer the question. Look! Squirrel!

Okay, have it your way but let's not forget you brought up the idea of "personhood" and are now refusing to prove your premise that personhood begins at conception.
 
Last edited:
Seems like you forgot that linking to other message board sites is strictly verboten hier.

I'm not saying you are wrong about that but I certainly did not see any mention of that in the rules of this thread or forum.


If you have arguments, even if already made in the past, make them here. Might start with the premise in the first five words of your poll --- upon which the Church in its history has much vacillated depending on what gave it sociopolitical advantage at the time.

I have no idea why you feel my post has anything at all to do with "the church." I tried to make it as clear as possible that this is a Constitutional issue.

Your poll btw is impossible to vote in, because it assumes a premise you haven't established.

If that's how you feel, then don't take the poll.

As the poll is based upon a hypothetical though (note the word "IF") then your expectation for the premise to already be established seems dubious at best.
 
I am prepared to debate the origins of "personhood" anytime you like.

If you are interested in any of my past debates on the subject, Here you go: " Debate: A human being in the Zygote, Embryo and Fetal stage of their life is "a human being" | Debate.org "
Translation: I refuse to answer the question. Look! Squirrel!

Okay, have it your way but let's not forget you brought up the idea of "personhood" and are now refusing to prove your premise that personhood begins at conception.

I am not dodging anything in the way of personhood. Like I said, we already have laws which make it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" during a criminal act - in ANY stage of development of said child's life.

You seem to want to challenge those laws and I don't.

That's all.
 
When the Constitution was written, full grown slaves were not Constitutionally recognized as equal "persons" either.

Oh look, the Hitler card. How cute. Well, two can play at that.

The PETA kooks say you're just like Hitler, for refusing to recognize the personhood of animals.

By your logic, they have to be considered correct, being that "feeling very strongly about it" is the proof they use and the proof you use. So, by your own standards, you're just like Hitler. Seig Heil, you Nazi. And you can't complain about that, because you were the one who tossed out the Hitler card.

One can easily argue that the original "intent" was never to exclude ANY human beings of any age, race, creed or stage of life from their personhood protections - despite the fact that they got it wrong with regards to slaves and in other areas.

One could, but it would be a nonsensical argument, being there's no evidence to back it up. It would be like the PETA kooks claiming the founder's intent was for cows to be considered people.

I have a hard time telling pro-life and PETA apart, being that they both rely on the same basic tactic. They both toss out some wild historical revisionism concerning what a person is defined as, and then declare that anyone who doesn't accept their weird lexical revisionism is a murderer.
 

Forum List

Back
Top