Home - List All Discussions

Abortion is unconstitutional.

This is why.

by: AshMarie88

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/thompson/041202

There is a direct relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Declaration states what our God-given rights are, "life, liberty, pursuit of happines" (property) and why we declared our independence. The Constitution explains what form of government will best guard these rights.
In his original draft Thomas Jefferson used the term "property" rather than "pursuit of happiness," because owning our own property is so important to our independence and happiness. The majority of our Founders preferred the more general term in the declaration, but used Jefferson's exact language in the Constitution.
It is important to understand that the Bill of Rights is legally considered part of the original Constitution. The items in the Bill of Rights were originally numbered as "articles," like the sections of the Constitution, not in the present form as "amendments." Most of those who signed the Constitution did it with the understanding that a bill of rights would shortly follow, which it did in 1791.
Our Founders wanted all to clearly understand that none of these God-given (natural) rights could be taken away unless we did something specific to cause that loss and that that action was to be proven before a jury of our peers or due process of law. The fifth amendment makes it clear that even if we are accused of a crime we do not lose our basic rights. The proper implementation of habeaus corpus helps guarantee these rights, including the basic right to life, using the exact language which Jefferson originally used in the Declaration: "no person (an unborn baby is a person) shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law."
The fourteenth amendment reiterates this basic principle: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Can anyone tell us what crimes unborn children have committed for which they should lose their lives? Of course agruments which support abortion are pure nonsense and evil in nature.
This goes directly to the heart of Roe v. Wade and unequivocably proves that the Supreme Court made an unconstitutional decision. This is specifically why the pro-abortion folks do not want unborn children recognized as a "person."
Dissenting opinion on Roe v. Wade (emphasis added):
"At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons - convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. ... I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. ... As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court." - Justice Byron R. White.
Not only is abortion constitutionally illegal it is a great sin in God's sight.
Let's show courage and common sense as we stand up for the rights of the unborn and all of our God-given constitutional rights.

reply from: bradensmommy

What is funny is when I was thinking about the whole Peterson case is that its homocide if the baby is wanted and killed, but legal if the mother wants to kill it in the womb

reply from: fetalisa

Mistake #1. Please explain how a zygote, embryo or fetus can own property.
Mistake #2. The Bill of Rights, as they existed in the original Constitution included the first 10 amendments which covered;
freedom of speech
freedom of the press
freedom of assembly
freedom of religious worship
the freedom to petition
and the right to keep and bear arms
preventing unreasonable search and seizure
cruel and unusual punishment ordered at trials
self-incrimination
guaranteeing due process of law
speedy public trial with an impartial jury
disclaimer of rights
Given that zygotes, embryos and fetuses can not speak, nor publish, nor assemble with others, worship, petition the government, bear arms, be unreasonably search, nor have property be unreasonably seized since they can't be held under suspicion of committing any crimes, nor can they own property, stand trial or be ordered to suffer cruel and unusual punishments as a result of a trial, incriminate themselves, particpate in a speedy trial with an impartial jury, nor participate in due process of law, nor be concerned with federal vs states rights, how can you possibly claim the Bill of Rights has any application at all to those not yet born? Given that it is physically impossible for zygotes, embryos or fetuses to participate in any rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, how can you possibly claim the INTENT of the authors in writing the Bill of Rights (or the rest of the Constitution for that matter) to apply in any way, shape or form, to those not yet born?

Which zygotes, embryos or fetuses have no ability whatsoever to participate in, which means the authors clearly did not intend to be addressing them.
Zygotes, embryos and fetuses can't be accused of crimes, so obviously the Bill of Rights does not address those not born.
Which legally, is wholly imaginary when discussing those not born, since the entirety of the Constitution discusses rights due citizens, which the 14th Amendment clearly states are persons either born or naturalized.
HAHAHAHAHA! This has GOT TO BE A JOKE, RIGHT? HAHAHA! TOO FUNNY!
Ok, explain something to me here. Your claim is the word 'person' cited here, includes the unborn. Given that those not yet born can't pursue liberty nor property, nor can they own property, nor participate in due process of law, how can you possibly therefore claim this word 'person' includes the unborn in the context in which it is used here? Talk about grasping at straws!
Your argument is the state can't deprive unborn 'persons' of the liberty of free speech, freedom of worship, the right to bear arms, the right to petition the government, the right to own property, etc? Without a doubt, this is THE FUNNIEST thing I have read on this cite yet. Of course the state can't deprive fetuses, embryos or zygotes of the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, the freedom of worship, etc, since it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for those not born to participate in ANY of these rights.
It is clear the words cited in the Constitution were not intended to have any application at all to those not yet born, who are physically incapable of exercising ANY of these rights.
Can you tell us who made the claim unborn children are guilty of crimes and should lose their lives for those crimes?
No doubt you are well acquainted with arguments based in pure nonsense. That is not up for question here at all!
Your argument goes directly to the heart of the trash can, for totally ignoring the context of the word 'person' at it appears in the Constitution.
Continuing your argument along the same lines as it began, are you? No thanks. I will accept the interpretations of judges with an accumulated totals of centuries on the bench, rather than take your word for it, ok?
I am quite happy as a choicer to not pretend those not yet born have any ability at all to express the liberties of freedoms of speech or worship, like persons do, thank you very much.
So you wrap this thing up by quoting the losing side? What might this reveal to you regarding your position, that you must resort to this?
Of course it is! Everyone knows it is wrong to deprive a zygote, embryo or fetus of the right to free speech.
Awwwwww, does that mean I don't get a cookie? Or does it mean instead if I tow the party line I can have sex with 72 virgins in the afterlife as a reward from your God?
By not pretending the unborn's right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Whatever!
By not subjecting them to trials without an impartial jury
Your God, whether it be Allah, Baal, Thor or Athena, did not give us constitutional rights. A bunch of men did. They even signed their names to it. Or do you also believe your God set the speed limit to 65 mph on the freeways?

reply from: fetalisa

Murder is an unlawful killing. Abortion is lawful, so isn't murder. This isn't rocket science.

reply from: bradensmommy

Murder is an unlawful killing. Abortion is lawful, so isn't murder. This isn't rocket science.
ummm you need to get your facts straight there sweetie. You have NO clue what you are talking about. Read a medical book, go online and get your facts straight before even posting that crap.

reply from: fetalisa

And what exactly makes you an expert in this field?
Oh, now I see exactly what kind of expert you are. You are the kind of expert that thinks the legality of abortion will be discussed in a medical book. Let me ask you a question. Have you ever heard the word 'law' used in a sentence?
What 'expert' advice from one who thinks issues of law can be learned from a medical textbook.
No doubt one as confused as you would think so.

reply from: fetalisa

Section 2 - The House
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)
Section 3 - The Senate
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Section 6 - Compensation
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Article II. - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Article III. - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article IV. - The States
Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.)
Amendment IV - Search and Seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment XII - Choosing the President, Vice-President
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Amendment XIV - Citizenship Rights.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Amendment XX - Presidential, Congressional Terms
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, the word 'person' or 'persons' appear 48 times in the Constitution. In the context of the Constitution, the words 'person' or 'persons' refers to born persons, IN EVERY SINGLE CASE. If you argue otherwise, please point out any instances of the words 'persons' or 'person' above which you claim DON'T refer to those already born.
Yet, you would have us believe in the 14th Amendment, the word 'persons' somehow is referring to the unborn, which would leave that particular usage of the word 'person' sticking out like a sore thumb, according to the usage of the word everywhere else it appears in the Constitution. We have NO REASON to assume the word 'person' as it appears in the 14th Amendment, could possibly refer to 'persons' in any other context than those already born.
As if that wasn't enough to prove beyond all doubt, that in the context of the Constitution the word 'persons' does not include the unborn, in any way, shape, form or usage, we can easily look further to the INTENT of the 14th Amendment when it was written.
What is important here, is noting the 13th Amendment that preceded it. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. The fact the 13th Amendment was ratified, does not mean the public at the time accepted it. Certain parts of the public began enacting laws that would allow something similar to slavery to continue to exist, in order to get around the legal abolition of slavery. In order to counter this, Congress ratified the 14th Amendment in response.
To see what the word 'person' references, as used in the 14th Amendment, you might wish to look http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/18.html#4
You will notice soon after the 14th Amendment was ratified, people wondered if it would ever be used for the reason it was originally intended, which was to protect people of color from discrimination, as is cited above. DID YOU CATCH THAT? The original INTENTION behind the law was to protect people of color from discrimination, NOT PROTECT THOSE NOT BORN!. Since then, it has been invoked to protect corporations, who are legal persons. Yet, there is no mention of the 14th Amendment EVER having been invoked to protect those not born.
So we can easily see the 14th Amendment was NEVER INTENDED AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN TO ADDRESS THE UNBORN. It's application did become much broader later, when it was applied to the legal persons of corporations.
Low and Behold! Once we discover that fact, all of a sudden the usage of the word 'person' becomes very clear within the Constitution. It can easily be shown that ALL INSTANCES OF THE USAGE OF THE WORD PERSON were applied to those already born at the time the documents were penned. THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT.
But wait, you say, Random House says 'persons' are human beings, so that word in the 14th Amendment MUST include those not born and I am free to TOTALLY IGNORE THE CONTEXT OF THE WORD PERSON AS USED THROUGHOUT THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS TOTALLY IGNORE THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR ANY RIDICULOUS IDEA I MIGHT FANCY!
Not exactly!
Justice Blackmun, in the LEGALLY BINDING decision known as Roe V Wade, had THIS to say regarding the 14th Amendment having ANY application at all to the unborn;
"A. 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, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
In other words, since no case could be cited that holds a fetus is a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, there is no legal right to 'due process of law'
for fetuses, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR SUCH A THING!
So Yes, Virginia. Abortion is not only legal, it is WHOLLY CONSTITUTIONAL!

reply from: fetalisa

Oh really? Then please explain Amendment 5 which begins;
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,"
The word 'person' as used here, most definitely DOES include non-citizens. Although you may be a citizen of England and not America, you shall not be held to answer for a crime without having the benefit of a trial.
The same is true regarding treason;
"No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. "
Although you may be a citizen of Germany, you can not be convicted of treason without two witnesses to the same act of treason.
Your claim that non-citizens are not included in usage of the word 'person' in the context of the Constitution, is therefore wholly false.
The right to a fair trial and requirements for convictions of treason, ALSO includes non-citizens. Big deal!
This is partly correct. The word 'person' as used in the context of the Constitution, applies to born persons in every case. Therefore, the INTENT of the usage of the word 'person' at the time the Constitution was written, MUST have been for that word to apply to born persons.
Once that is combined with Blackmun's admission in Roe, that no legal precedent could be found where the word 'person' could be held to include those not born, then it becomes very clear the usage of the word 'person,' in the context of the Constitution, can not be construed to include those not born, IN ANY INSTANCE where the word 'person' appears within the Constitution.
Does this mean the usage of the word 'person' in the 14th Amendment will NEVER include those not born? I can't answer yes to that since I am not a psychic. For instance, at the time the 14th Amendment was penned, the intent was not to include corporations as 'persons.' However, later legal decisions made such a usage possible.
Is it probable that the usage of the word 'person' in the 14th Amendment, could be expanded by later legal decisions to include those not born? Absolutely not and here's why. If a case was brought today which raised this question, Blackmun's admission in Roe that legal precedent does not show the unborn to be covered by the 14th Amendment, is itself a legal precedent of 33 years standing at this point in time. Additionally, there are other laws, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which contain an exception for abortion, which STRENGTHEN the precedent of Blackmun's admission in Roe.
A newborn Jewish male child is circumsized at the age of 8 days. A newborn baby is christened in a church. Do such practices NOT represent freedom of religion? A baby may not speak in words, but will cry or coo. Are these sounds NOT constitutionally protected free speech? A 10 year old may want to be a senator. He must wait until he is 25 years old to achieve that dream. A 10 year exercises constitutionally protected free speech, whenever he speaks of this dream. So I fail to see how these rights do not apply to newborns or 10 year olds.
Your mistake here is the only tactic you have in this debate is to compare born to not born and so the first thing you jump on is 'well if unborn' can't exercise these rights, then newborns and 10 year olds can't either. It's yet another example of how comparing born to unborn falls completely apart, primarily because you don't even bother to see if the comparison is valid, before trotting out your claims.
Yet non-citizens have a right to a fair trial and must have two witnesses of one act of treason in order to be constitutionally convicted of treason.
If this was true, abortion would be illegal. Abortion is legal because no such 'right to life' can be found in the Constitution to apply to those not born due to;
1. Context of the usage of the word 'person' as found throughout the Constitution.
2. Nonexistent precedent for the word 'person' to apply to those not born in the entire history of our law.
3. Blackmun's admission in Roe that #2 exists.
4. Other laws which strengthen and reinforce this precedent, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which allows an exception to abortion.
So you are quite correct when you say, it's really not hard to understand. It's blatantly obvious.
Tell it to the baby being christened in a church. Explain how the sounds a baby makes is not constitutionally protected speech.
So are you arguing it is unconstitutional for a baby to be christened in a church?
It is your position that ignores the legal realities of our society, not mine.

reply from: AshMarie88

Neither can a preemie. I guess it's still okay to kill it tho, right?

reply from: fetalisa

A preemie most certainly can own property. If the parents of the preemie die in an accident, all property owned by those parents is inherited by the preemie.
And of course you can't kill a preemie. Do you not know murder is illegal?

reply from: AshMarie88

A preemie most certainly can own property. If the parents of the preemie die in an accident, all property owned by those parents is inherited by the preemie.
And of course you can't kill a preemie. Do you not know murder is illegal?
A preemie cannot OWN property itself, it's not old enough.
How is killing a preemie murder? Had that preemie been in the womb 2 minutes before, you'd be labeling it choice! Which is it, choice or murder?!

reply from: fetalisa

So the parents of the preemie who have died in an accident do not have the right to leave their property to the preemie? So you deny the rights of the parents to leave their property to their child or children upon the death of the parents. That's certainly an interesting legal hypothesis.
Because the preemie, being born and outside the womb, is a person within the context of the Constitution. You don't have the right to rob that preemie of the 'right to life.' To do such a thing is to commit a murder, or unlawful killing.
No I wouldn't. The law would.
It's very simple. Once the preemie is born, it becomes a person in the context of the Constitution and so is guaranteed a 'right to life' by our law.
If the preemie is aborted before it is born, it is a lawful killing, not a murder, since the unborn preemie is not a person in the context of the Constitution, and is therefore, not guaranteed any 'right to life' by law.

reply from: AshMarie88

Your argument is insanely invalid.

reply from: fetalisa

One need merely point to the Constitution to prove the word 'person' has always referred to those already born. One need merely point to societies outside of our own, to prove the unborn have never been considered equal to persons. One need merely point to societies outside of your own to prove abortion was rarely, if ever, considered to be the legal equivalent of murder.
In other words, it is your viewpoint that is insane, having no basis in fact, law, history, or anything else one could point to.

reply from: faithman

One need merely point to the Constitution to prove the word 'person' has always referred to those already born. One need merely point to societies outside of our own, to prove the unborn have never been considered equal to persons. One need merely point to societies outside of your own to prove abortion was rarely, if ever, considered to be the legal equivalent of murder.
In other words, it is your viewpoint that is insane, having no basis in fact, law, history, or anything else one could point to.
You are dead wrong. when one points to the constitution, you find the word posterity 40 words into the document. The word posterity means future generations.
The spirit and intent of the document is set by it's preamble, not the amendments. The spirit and intent of the constitution is to protect the right of life to the pre-born posterity of our nation.

reply from: Teresa18

Well, I think other societies think differently. According to this chart, there are countries who believe in protecting the unborn person. They only permit abortions if the mother's life is a stake. In Chile, El Salvador, Malta, and Vatican City, abortion is illegal in all circumstances. In fact, though, you'll notice the U.S. permits abortion in all circumstances, making it one of the few least restricted countries. Almsot all countries on the chart are more restricted in the U.S. If this was not a person deserving of rights, why would so many of these countries care?
The following countries though, only permit abortion if the life of the mother is at stake:
Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua, Benin, Brunei, Central African Republic, Chad, Columbia, Congo, Cote D'Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Gabon, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Kiribati, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Marshal Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Micronesia, Monaco, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Niue, Oman, Palau, Paraguay, Philippines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and Yemen.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm

reply from: Teresa18

- 1861 | Offences Against the Person Act
Abortion was made a criminal offence.
Article 58 "Every woman being with child, who with intent to procure her own miscarriage shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing.....and whomsoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman whether she be or be not with child shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing....with the like intent shall be guilty of a felon, and being convicted thereof shall be liable......to be kept in penal servitude for life."
Article 59 "[W]homsoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any poison or other noxious thing......knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman whether she be or not be with child, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for the term of three years."
http://www.ifpa.ie/abortion/hist.html

It looks like abortion was illegal in Ireland completely until 1993 when the law was revised in cases for life of the mother. In fact, people could go to prison for life. A life in prison is a pretty rough sentence, more than some murderers in the U.S. get.
Let's look at some other countries where abortion is only permitted to save the life of the mother. They recognize that the child within the womb deserves protection.
Philippines
Abortion is illegal except when a woman's life is in danger. In those circumstances, permission for the abortion must be obtained from a board of medical professionals. The Child and Youth Welfare Code of 1975 established that a person has inherent dignity from the moment of conception, and the constitution of 1987 requires that the state "equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception."
Iran
Abortion has been illegal since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Although there are no explicit exceptions to this prohibition, acts performed to save the life of another person are sanctioned. It is thus commonly understood that abortion is illegal except when necessary to save a woman's life. In 2005, the Iranian parliament passed a measure allowing abortions within the first four months of pregnancy in cases of fetal impairment, but the measure was blocked by senior clerics.
Egypt
The Egyptian Penal Code of 1937 bans abortion in all circumstances, but criminal law allows flexibility on grounds of "necessity." Physicians rely on that principle to justify performing an abortion when they believe a woman's life or health is in danger or in cases of fetal abnormality.
Senegal
Legislation based on an 1810 penal code makes abortion illegal except to save a woman's life. For a woman to qualify for an abortion, two physicians must concur that her life is in danger and one of these physicians must be on a court-approved list. These restrictions have attracted the attention of the U.N. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which has expressed concern over the health risks posed to women by the lack of access to legal abortions.
Nigeria
Abortion is legal only to preserve the pregnant woman's life, but health specialists report that large numbers of procedures are performed both in the predominately Christian south and the predominately Muslim north. According to a study published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute in 2001, induced abortion is preferred among Nigerian adolescents, as it is perceived to be less harmful to future fertility than contraception.
Germany (punishable after 12 weeks)
A 1995 law makes abortion illegal but not a pubnishable act during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy if the woman receives counseling three days before undergoing the prodecure. After the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, abortion is available only to preserve the life and health of the woman. State health insurance generally does not pay for the procedure except in cases of financial need.
Venezuela
Under the Criminal Code of 1964, abortion is illegal in Venezuela except when the woman's life is at risk. The Code of Medical Ethics of 1971 allows abortions for "therapeutic purposes," but it does not define the term. A legal abortion requires the written consent of the woman or her husband or her legal representative. In 2005, some political supporters of President Hugo Chavez unsuccessfully lobbied for the legalization of abortion in cases of rape or incest.
Nicaragua
Abortion is legal only if three doctors agree that the pregnant woman's life would be in danger or in cases of rape. Nicaragua's congress voted to end those exceptions in October 2006, in new legislation that has yet to go into effect. That legislation would ban abortion in all circumstances. There were six legal abortions in 2002, the latest year for which figures are available. Health experts estimate the number of illegal abortions to be more than 30,000 a year.
Other countries restrict abortion to the woman's health and rape.

reply from: AshMarie88

One need merely point to the Constitution to prove the word 'person' has always referred to those already born. One need merely point to societies outside of our own, to prove the unborn have never been considered equal to persons. One need merely point to societies outside of your own to prove abortion was rarely, if ever, considered to be the legal equivalent of murder.
In other words, it is your viewpoint that is insane, having no basis in fact, law, history, or anything else one could point to.
You are dead wrong. when one points to the constitution, you find the word posterity 40 words into the document. The word posterity means future generations.
The spirit and intent of the document is set by it's preamble, not the amendments. The spirit and intent of the constitution is to protect the right of life to the pre-born posterity of our nation.
FM! Where have you been?!

reply from: fetalisa

Just because the word posterity references future generations, does not mean the authors who used the word intended for it to apply to those not born. It is obvious from reading the Constitution in its entirety, the document is referencing born persons and rights born persons would enjoy. So the point you raise here, is a non-point, if there ever was one.
Wrong! The preamble merely states the purpose of the document. All that follows lays out how that purpose will be achieved. Given that rights to be enjoyed are layed out by the amendments, there is no way you can claim the spirit and intent of the document can not be found within the amendments. The rights addressed do indeed express the intent.
You are dreaming. The document, in it's entirety, concerns itself with the rights born persons will enjoy. The fact that EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE where the words 'person' or 'persons' appears, is clearly referencing born persons, provides us no other way to read the document, other than addressing born persons and the rights of born persons.
Additionally, we have Blackmun's point in the Roe decision which states in very clear and uncertain language, that no precedent could be found wherein the word 'person' as used in the 14th Amendment, could be found to have been applied to those not born. This means, the legal 'right to life' for the unborn, does not exist.

reply from: yoda

No "right" may be enjoyed by anyone who is dead.
How interesting that such an obvious point would be missed by such a staunch proabort............

reply from: fetalisa

The fact abortion was illegal, does not prove at all it was illegal because it was unconstitutional, which is the entire point of this thread.
As far as abortion being illegal in other countries, that point is immaterial to the debate as well. I can point to just as many countries where abortion is legal as you point to countries where it is illegal. Both cases of other countries is entirely off topic to the debate. Other countries do not govern themselves according to the United States Constitution.
In any event, every single instance of the word 'person' or 'persons' as it appears in the Constitution, clearly references born persons. Every single right addressed in the Constitution, clearly references rights that ONLY born persons could enjoy. There is not even one case where the words 'person' or 'persons' is used within the Constitution, that could have ANY POSSIBLE APPLICATION to those not born. In the same way, there is no case where any right addressed within the Constitution, could have ANY POSSIBLE APPLICATION to those not born.
Therefore, we have no other choice but to admit the document itself addresses born persons and the rights they would enjoy. Therefore, the legal 'right to life' does not exist for those not born and never has, in the entire history of our society.

reply from: Teresa18

You contadicted yourself. On page one, you went after Ashley:
Then, I prove other countries/societies recognize the unborn as persons with the right to life, and you say:

reply from: faithman

Just because the word posterity references future generations, does not mean the authors who used the word intended for it to apply to those not born. It is obvious from reading the Constitution in its entirety, the document is referencing born persons and rights born persons would enjoy. So the point you raise here, is a non-point, if there ever was one.
Wrong! The preamble merely states the purpose of the document. All that follows lays out how that purpose will be achieved. Given that rights to be enjoyed are layed out by the amendments, there is no way you can claim the spirit and intent of the document can not be found within the amendments. The rights addressed do indeed express the intent.
You are dreaming. The document, in it's entirety, concerns itself with the rights born persons will enjoy. The fact that EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE where the words 'person' or 'persons' appears, is clearly referencing born persons, provides us no other way to read the document, other than addressing born persons and the rights of born persons.
Additionally, we have Blackmun's point in the Roe decision which states in very clear and uncertain language, that no precedent could be found wherein the word 'person' as used in the 14th Amendment, could be found to have been applied to those not born. This means, the legal 'right to life' for the unborn, does not exist.
You punk mouthed pro-abort murderer, who will one day reap your just reward. Your very first coment contradicts itself. Spirit and intent is purpose dumb ass. The intention here is to afford the blessings of Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to future generations. The 14th amendment also gives congress the authority to atribute personhood to the pre-born, which is recognized in the roe discission itself. You are a maggot scum bag liar who will meet your just desserts some day.

reply from: fetalisa

It's not a contradiction at all. I have very clearly referenced Blackmun's statement in Roe which proves no legal precedent exists where those not born have been considered the legal equivalent of persons. How was Blackmun able to make such a claim? He looked for such a precedent not just within our law, but he also looked back in history before our nation. All I have done is restate the findings which led to his conclusion.
First of all, you have proven no such thing. All you have proven is abortion is illegal in some countries at the present time. You have not proven the reason abortion is illegal in those countries because of legal 'right to life' has been granted to them. Nor have your proven abortion is illegal in those countries, because those countries recognize the unborn as legal persons entitled to the same rights as born persons. Further, it wouldn't matter of you had proven any of things, since none of those countries are governed by the Constitution.
Neither is there contradiction between these two statements;
"As far as abortion being illegal in other countries, that point is immaterial to the debate as well."
"One need merely point to societies outside of your own to prove abortion was rarely, if ever, considered to be the legal equivalent of murder."
In other words, just as Blackmun looked back in history before making his determination the unborn had no 'right to life,' we can do the same. When I state, "abortion was rarely, if ever...," I am speaking in the past tense, rehashing the same discoveries that led Blackmun to state what he did. You missed the fact my statement was in the past tense, and then responded with present day abortion law.
Therefore, your contradiction is a fantasy existing solely in your own mind.

reply from: fetalisa

Awww, did little Billy wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Does little Billy think that name-calling will shame those with whom he disagrees into running away?
Really? What's the 'just reward' for 5 year olds who call names to others on the playground?
pos·ter·i·ty
1. succeeding or future generations collectively: Judgment of this age must be left to posterity.
2. all descendants of one person: His fortune was gradually dissipated by his posterity. (dictionary.com)
Given that posterity is defined as future generations collectively, not an unborn fetus individually and given that posterity can also be defined as all descendants of one person, how can an aborted zygote, embryo or fetus be a descendant since they no longer exist? By definition, we've no reason to believe the word 'posterity' is referencing those not born at all. Additionally, the Constitution addresses born persons in every case where the word 'person' is used. The Constitution is addressing born persons in every case where rights are discussed. So by both the definition of the word 'posterity' and the context of the usage of word 'person' and rights discussed, it is blatantly obvious the Constitution is addressing born persons.
Further, given that at the time the Constitution was penned, they lacked the technological capability to remove a 24 week old fetus from the womb and keep it alive, from what possible definition of the word 'posterity,' can we believe it applies to those not born? And how could we possibly assume the authors of the Constitution intended to apply to fetuses, when the capability to keep them alive outside the womb before birth did not exist?
Not according to Blackmun's findings in Roe;
"no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Therefore, the fetus has no legal 'right to life' in our law. This is a very long standing precedent which has only been strengthened since Roe, as in the case of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which contains an exception for abortion.
But, lets' assume Congress lost what little sanity they possess and wrote some inane law that recognized the unborn as persons in the meaning of the 14th Amendment. It would leave us in a situation where we did not have the right to deprive fetuses of the right to a fair trial, the right to bear arms, the right of free speech, the right to freedom of religion, etc. In other words, it would leave us in a totally nonsensical legal quandry where fetuses could not be deprived of rights for which it is physically impossible for them to participate in anyway.
Such a thing would be entirely ludicrous and make a mockery of our entire legal system.
May the readers here notice who is addressing points raised in the debate and who is calling names much like a 5 year old would.

reply from: fetalisa

That's your point, not mine. I never made such a point nor implied such and you know it.

reply from: fetalisa

It doesn't matter when life begins.

reply from: Sigma

What crime did the pregnant woman commit that her freedom is violated?

reply from: MattG

fetalisa forgets that s/he was once a zygote and if conceived after January 22, 1973, an abortion survivor. Congratulations, fetalisa.

reply from: MattG

Fetalisa, thank you for your learned, if somewhat leaning discussion of the Consititution, wherein you cite many, most, pehaps all the instances when person is used. Then, you only allude to the XIII Amendment that does not contain that word.
The XIVth Amendment did as you say grant personhood on a race of people to whom it had been denied by The Supreme Court(7 - 2 ). See their Dred Scott Decision of 1857, a ruling now second to Roe Vs Wade of !973 by the Supreme Court(7-2)
However, that XIIIth Amendment should be allowed to overrule Roe vs. Wade:

All Parenthical notes, above, are mine. Since Pregnancy is not a crime, but a natural condition before birth this amendment does not concern its completion, only its unnatural interruption in the act that does not allow it to complete, i.e., abortion.

reply from: fetalisa

You ignore the point that had I been aborted I would never have known the difference. Thanks so much for your non-point here. Let me know if you should ever choose to address the topic at hand.

reply from: bradensmommy

What crime did the pregnant woman commit that her freedom is violated?
Don't ask a question with a question unless you can answer the first one....I don't think you can really.

reply from: fetalisa

Simple. If we considered the unborn to be persons, in the context of the word as it appears throughout the Constution, then the unborn would be granted rights for which it is physically impossible for them to exercise, such as freedoms of religion or speech. This is not the case with non-citizens, who can and do exercise a right to a fair trial. In other words, comparing born non-citizens to the unborn fails yet again, as it does every time.
Non-citizens are born, so are included in the use of the word 'person' as it appears in the Constitution, and have the ability to exercise a right such as the right to a fair trial. Those not born aren't persons as the word is used throughout the Constitution and couldn't possibly be considered as such, since it is physically impossible for them to exercise a single right addressed within the document.
Nope. It only proves the meaning of the word person as it appears in the Constitution represents the traditional meaning of the word persons, who were born. There's no reason the authors of the Constitution would have included those not born when discussing 'persons,' because the definition of the word 'persons' which includes the unborn would not be invented until the late 20th century when the prolife movement appearred.
Non-citizens were born. There is no question they were persons.
The Constitution does indeed make such distinctions. Persons are entitled to a fair trial, whereas citizens can run for the office of senator.
There was no need to put the word 'born' within the document. You forget that applying the word 'person' to those not born is an invention of the late 20th century.
In the context in which they are used. In the context of the Constitution, it is obvious it is addressing born persons, since only born persons could exercise any of the outlined rights. If what you say is true, then you would have us believe the right to a fair trial could be exercised by a fetus, which is absurd.
Yeah I know. That's what happens when I type responses in a hurry due to lack of time. I retract that. I was a mistake of my part for sure. I just haven't bothered to edit the original post.
It's not an exclusion at all. At the time the Constitution was written, those not yet born were not considered to be persons. If you have evidence which suggests otherwise, by all means, present it. And definitions from dictionaries which define the word 'person' as 'human beings' are not proof, unless you can prove such definitions were applied to those not born in those days.
You assume that because prolifers include the unborn in usage of the word 'person' that it has always been. It wasn't.
Not true. There were many societies throughout history that didn't criminalize abortion. If these societies had included the 'unborn' in their definition or usage of the word 'person,' there is no way abortion would have been legal. They didn't consider the unborn to be 'persons' and so therefore, didn't criminalize abortion, because they didn't view it as 'murder' of a 'person.' History itself proves your claim to be false.
Here's a couple of 'for instances;'
"This latter event, called "ensoulment," was believed to occur at 40 days after conception for male fetuses, and 90 days after conception for female fetuses." (4th Century BCE - 1st Century CE)
It didn't matter that 'life' existed in the womb for the first 39 or 89 days. It was legal to kill that life up to those points. They didn't believe a 'person' existed, until a soul inhabited the fetus. What existed before 39 or 89 days was not a 'person' and so, could be killed.
Here's an example from the 7th century;
"Oral intercourse required from 7 years to a lifetime of penance; abortion required only 120 days." (5th to 17th Century CE )

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm
So if aborton killed a 'person,' why was a 120 penance to be paid, when oral sex, which killed no person, required from 7 year to a lifetime of penance? These societies DID NOT consider a zygote, embryo or fetus to be a person. There were many such societies throughout history.
So your claim, the word "person" has always included all members of the species Homo sapiens" is entirely false. Well not entirely. They may have considered zygotes, embryos or fetus to be homo sapiens or part of our species, but they didn't equate them with born persons.
There was no need to specifically exclude them because the word 'person' was not applied to those not born traditionally, (as is the case with the Constitution) which one could easily see from the examples I have already given. Here's more examples from the same source;
"Barnabas: "You shall not kill either the fetus by abortion or the new born" (Letter of Barnabas, circa 125)
"Tertullian (circa 155 - 225 CE): "...we are not permitted, since murder has been prohibited to us once and for all, even to destroy ...the fetus in the womb. "
" "Some women take medicines to destroy the germ of future life in their own bodies. They commit infanticide before they have given birth to the infant"
"St. Basil the Great (circa 330 - 379 CE): "She who has deliberately destroyed a [fetus....as well as those receiving the poison which kills the fetus.""
They called them what they were - fetus, not person.
Then why would the law contain an exception for abortion? If the unborn were persons such an exception would not be legal. It not only proves our society doesn't recognize abortion as a violent act against an unborn, it also proves we do not recognize the unborn to be persons.
The article discusses erosion of privacy rights, not increased recognition of legal personhood of those not born. As far as I know, the personhood of the unborn has never been a point of contention legally since Roe. What Blackmun found is still precedent, hasn't been weakened and isn't up for debate in legal circles at least.
I am not suggesting a baby is choosing to participate. I only note that newborns have are physically capable of participating, whereas for the unborn, such an act is physically impossible. Yet another example where comparing born to unborn falls completely apart.
There was recent case where a middle school student was allowed to distribute prolife flyers at school. A decision had to first be rendered by a court.
Additionally, don't confuse physically incapable with physically impossible. The two are not the same at all.
Tell it to the student who had to get a court order to exercise his rights.
Then why is flag-burning and pornography protected under free speech rights? Neither of these are speech.
Nope. It is physically impossible for an unborn to exercise any rights outlined within the Constitution. Given the word 'person' as traditionally used, never included those not born, we have every reason to believe the Constitution does not address the unborn, nor apply at all.
Yet another example where comparing born to unborn falls flat on its face, because you didn't bother to check validity before you posted.
Then why is abortion legal throughout so many societies if it is so obvious they are the same?
Only if you ignore the differences between the two. Sorry, but the fact an unborn can't exercise free speech, but I, or a ten year old can, proves there is a vast gulf between those of us born and those of us not born.
Abortion is legal in many countries and has been throughout history. Obviously, Roe is not the only decision that legalized it. Obviously, many view born and unborn as nowhere near the same. Obviously, many do not view the unborn as persons. Obviously, abortion is legal because many societies don't view it as the murder of a person.

reply from: MattG

You ignore the point that had I been aborted I would never have known the difference. Thanks so much for your non-point here. Let me know if you should ever choose to address the topic at hand.
Your non-response is not helpful either. How do you know that after death life eternal does not await those who a. have accepted it, b. have not rejected it through no fault of their own, or c. have been destroyed via induced (chemical or sugical, there is no difference, really) or spontaneous abortion.
I hope you are in group a., as I hope I am and remain. C. is a subset of b., although everyone in b. has been born.
I can't remember if you express a disbelief in the Diety, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but if you do, prove to me that He doesn't exist. If I err, and you are Christian. or another of the World Faiths without the Trinity, How can you support the taking of human life by abortion?
However, this is a prolife Board. Everything in my posts relate to this point. Care to comment?

reply from: fetalisa

Exactly.
Whic is setup in the name of the preemie.
In other words, the preemie owns the property but is not allowed to transact on it due to age. Why? Children do not have the understanding to know what they are doing and any contract they sign would not be valid until age 18. So, the preemie does indeed own the property, although full ownership rights won't pass until the preemie reaches the a certain age.
Every bit of this in accordance with property rights.

reply from: fetalisa

What I posted is not the complete text of the Constitution. I only posted instances where the word 'person' or 'persons' appears, with each of those words in bold text. I did this to make it simple for those who wished to refute my claims. They wouldn't have to scan the text for 'person' or 'persons,' but instead the instances would 'jump out' from the text. I don't claim to be infallible and hope I didn't miss a reference for those words.
Given the court could find no instance where fetuses would be covered under the 14th Amendment, I find it highly improbable a similar instance could be found for the 14th Amendment.
See above. You might also wish to note abortion is not a punishment for any crime an unborn is presumed to have committed, since it would be physically impossible for them to do such.
And women are just as innocent as the fetus. It is mere mistake of biology that gestation fell upon their shoulders.
Abortion is wholly natural. Up to 50% of all fertilized eggs result in spontaneous abortion, ie, no human intervention. Nature creates miscarriages and so do we.

reply from: fetalisa

Sorry.
I have as much evidence this is the case as I have for unicorns, in other words, none.
You have it backwards. If you claim a deity exists, the burden of proof is on you to prove it so. You can't prove a thing doesn't exist. Since you brought a Christian belief system into it, I can offer a couple of examples why I don't believe it;
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Uh, sorry but, the only way 'all of the kingdoms of the world' could be seen from a mountaintop would be if the world was flat. I know the world is not flat. Therefore, I have no reason to believe this verse is true.
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 27:9 [9] Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
Uh sorry, but Jeremiah made no such prophecy. Check Zecheriah 11:12-13 if you want to know what the authors of Matthew are discussing here. Looks like the authors didn't know how to check their sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The authors of the gospels can't seem to keep their facts straight as to the crucifixion either;
Matthew 27:37 THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Mark 15:26 THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Luke 23:38 THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

John 19:19 JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Were these witnesses drunk or high? One would think witnesses to the same event would have seen the same thing on the sign, don't you think? I know if you and I both saw a car accident at a corner, we won't tell the story of what we saw exactly the same. I would hope, however, we would both agree, the sign did, in fact, say 'STOP.'
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark 11:11-12 Has a hungry Jesus walking up to a fig tree. Finding no fruit on it because it was out of season, he curses the tree. Uh, excuse me but, if I saw you walk up to a fig tree in January and get mad because the tree doesn't have fruit on it, I am going to think you are a fool. Why curse a fig tree because you are too stupid to know the fruit doesn't grow on trees out of season?
------------------------------------------------------------
No one can disprove a god exists. I can however state reasons why I don't believe in this particular one (or 3 in 1, whatever). There are too many errors of logic and errors of fact for these fables to be credible. I don't believe homes can have leprosy. I don't believe leprosy can be cured by chanting over the blood of dead birds. I don't believe slavery (Lev 25:44-46) is moral. I don't believe a God would suggest we make slaves of children to keep as our property as Jehovah (Lev 25:1) suggests. I don't believe a God would recommend we put children to death who talk back to their parents, etc and so on. I find most of these ideas either morally reprehensible (slavery), or totally absurd (a home can have leprosy).
1. Animal cruelty is illegal.
2. Mouse traps exist solely to kill mice.
3. Mouse traps should be illegal to buy, sell, own, or use.
In your opinion, is the argument valid? If the argument isn't valid, why?

reply from: AshMarie88

1. Animal cruelty is illegal.
2. Mouse traps exist solely to kill mice.
3. Mouse traps should be illegal to buy, sell, own, or use.
In your opinion, is the argument valid? If the argument isn't valid, why?
Trapping mice for everyone's health is not the same as this:
http://abortionno.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/10w12.jpg

reply from: bradensmommy

So animal cruelty is illegal, why isn't unborn human cruelty illegal? Her point is null doncha think?
I don't get it about some people:
Save the manatees BUT
keep abortion legal
WTF?

reply from: fetalisa

It's not about health. What would you do if you had one in your house? Can you use a mouse trap if animal cruelty is illegal?
Emotional appeals don't work on me. Your gory links of bogus pictures are therefore pointless. I know the game sister. If the only way you can argue is through emotional appeals, then you have no rational reason for your viewpoint and no rational argument. I could likewise post pictures of the removal of appendixes in surgeries and scare folks away from the surgery as well. All it would prove is that I am good at emotional manipulation through gore. It wouldn't make my arguments valid, but would instead make others wonder if I had a real point at all. Try again.

reply from: fetalisa

Why is it legal for you to kill a mosquito, but not me?

reply from: bradensmommy

Why is it legal for you to kill a mosquito, but not me?
Just like Siggy answer a question with a question.

reply from: fetalisa

Of course they can't. The unborn aren't persons so can't be either citizens or non-citizens.
So then, years ago, when my friend slipped into a coma, are you suggesting that her property rights somehow disappeared? Sure she was in a coma. She still had joint ownership of ALL PROPERTY of the marriage. 8 years later she did come out of it, quite surprised to see her children almost fully grown. She was physically incapable of transacting on the property while in the coma. She didn't lose her property rights, however.
So what's the point here? Oh, that's right. The unconscious or those in a coma do not cease to be born persons. Their rights to property do not cease to exist. No she couldn't exercise ALL of her rights while in a coma, but some rights, like her property rights, continued on.
There's a difference between PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to exercise ANY RIGHTS
vs.
PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE of exercising at least SOME RIGHTS.
That difference lets us know the Constitution was not intended to address those not born.
Your question is inane. If you are born you are a person. If not, then not.
A newborn exercises free speech in the sounds they make.
The fact remains those not born aren't persons with respect to the Constitution since it is physically impossible for them to participate in any rights outlined within the Constitution. It's not about ability or inability to exercise rights on the part of the born, but is about physical impossibility of the unborn to participate in ANY rights outlined in the Constitution. This lets us know the Constitution was not intended to address the rights of those not born.
Those not born aren't persons with respect to the Constitution and therefore have no legal 'right to life.'
The reason is very simple to understand and based on one of the oldest legal principles;
You can't use my car without my consent.
You can't use my body without my consent.
The unborn can't use a uterus without the consent of the owner of that uterus.
It would make no sense for the unborn to have free use of the uterus of another without consent, since I, as a person, can't even do the same. We would have elevated the unborn to rights which exceed the born. That would be nonsensical. The prolife movement hasn't offered a single valid legal argument for recognition of personhood for those not born in 33 years. How in the world will they come up with a valid legal argument, that grants them free use of what isn't theirs, when even born people lack that right? It's crazy to even suggest it.
This does not change the fact the unborn aren't 'persons' with respect to the Constitution.
Sure. Just as soon as you can point to any use of the words 'person' or 'persons' in the Constitution that could possibly be construed to having any application to those not born at all, yet leaves a logically consistent result.
You might reread the arguments Blackmun heard regarding whether the unborn could be considered 'persons' with respect to the 14th Amendment. Explain why the argument would exist if your claim were true.
That's not true at all. All you have said here is it's true man hasn't always agreed with your opinions.
Good luck proving that one. Talk about hopeless. Do you seriously expect the public will buy such a ridiculous claim? Do you seriously think by stating nonsense such as this, that any will be convinced? Or will they instead, noting the ludicrousness of the claim, wonder what is so horribly wrong with your position that you have to grasp at such straws to make your case? On the one hand, you wish to use science to support the conception claim. On the other hand, you must deny science and what any fool can see staring them in the face, for this claim.
The ancients may not have known all that we know, but they weren't that stupid. They knew something was alive from conception. The sources I've already provided prove some thought although alive, they weren't yet 'ensouled' until some number of days after conception. Your claim here is entirely false.
There never was any question, at least not from the sources I have quoted.
Science calls them blastocysts, zygotes, embryos and fetuses, not persons.
You are suggesting the ancients didn't know what was aborted was alive, if it was aborted before quickening. You assume they didn't understand in the pre-quickening stage, that life existed. This is false. They were no different than we were. The laws were not about when life began, but when a 'soul' came into existence, which they set at 'quickening.' If the something that existed previous to quickening wasn't life, what would have been the point of permitting or criminalizing abortion? By your argument, they would be aborting something that wasn't alive, because quickening hadn't occurred. You've no proof this is what they believed, but ample proof they did believe a 'soul' existed upon quickening.
Additonally, the 'life begins at conception' isn't a revelation of modern science. That idea has existed for 349 years now. Why you pretend otherwise, I can not know;
From the previously cited source;
'In the 17th century, the concept of "simultaneous animation" gained acceptance within the medical and church communities in Western Europe. 9 This is the belief that an embryo acquires a soul at conception, not at 40 or 80 days into gestation as the church was teaching. In 1658 Hieronymus Florentinius, a Franciscan, asserted that all embryos or fetuses, regardless of its gestational age, which were in danger of death must be baptized. However, his opinion did not change the status of abortion as seen by the church.'
That's fantasy in the context of the Constitution. Blackmun wouldn't needed to have addressed what he did if your claim were true. The fact he could find no legal precedent to support your claim, is clear evidence your claim here is entirely false.
A fetus, person or not, has no right to use what belongs to another, without the consent of that another.
You can't use my car without my consent either.
If only your opinion were indisputable fact. We knew about fertilization and when it occurred in 1973. All scientists around the world knew the same. Yet abortion is legal in many countries, meaning, this 'fact' you claim is 'indisputable,' is not even close to being so. Then, of course, we have countries where abortion is outlawed, such as Iran. As if that's any example we want to follow.
How were they ignorant of the biological facts in the past, when the idea life begins at conception was 315 years old at the time the Roe decision was rendered?
The only thing mind boggling here is your claim the 'life begins at conception' is some new fangled idea of recent vintage.
It is intellectually dishonest to pretend the word 'person' has always been used to include those not born. All one needs to do is read the Constitution. It is clear from the context of the usage of the word, as well as the rights outlined, who and what is addressed.
Let me know if you ever choose to address an argument I made, rather than your nonsense strawmen.
You are being ridiculous. "All persons born or naturalized. Why ask the question when we've been over this a thousand times already?
No, but they can make sounds and express free speech. It is physically impossible for the unborn to do the same.
That's not my claim at all. The prolife movement began applying those not born in the usage of the word 'person' in the late 20th century. The Constitution doesn't make that mistake.
Well you have to. The entirety of the movement hinges on the fraud the unborn are equal to persons. They aren't. Science proves it. Law proves it. History proves it, etc.
Which would leave nonsense in the rest of the 14th amendment, claiming fetuses can't be deprived of rights such as speech or religion, nor be deprived of property. That's as ridiculous as claiming the fetus isn't part of the mother.
That's your strawman, not mine. A person in a coma can't be deprived of their property.
Nope. That's your strawman, not mine. If they are born they are a person.
You know I admit my mistakes and make retractions. I even told another poster I may have missed instances of the words 'person' or 'persons' in the Constitution, because I am not infallible. This is nothing new.
I am tending to a friend who had surgery recently. She is in severe pain and on heavy duty pain killers because the pain is so severe. I check on her throughout the day. Additionally, if she calls me or needs me for anything. I run. I won't apologize that she takes precedence over this debate.
It doesn't mean the definition was used that way at the time the Constitution was written. It is clear that definition wasn't applied to the unborn, by reading the Constitution and noting how the word was used.
I posted every reference in the Constitution to the word 'person' or 'persons' and asked any who respond here to point any usage of the word that could possibly be construed to apply to the unborn. I even used bold text wherever those words appeared to make it easier.
Red herring. It is not about definitions of words, but usage. If it was about definitions, abortion would be illegal.
It doesn't mean past societies used that word when discussing zygotes, embryos or fetuses, like in the Constitution, for instance.
My source is the Constitution. Point to any usage of the words 'person' or 'persons' which could possibly be construed as having any application to the unborn. Oh, that's right. You can't.
Except those societies that didn't criminalize abortion, very obviously didn't consider the unborn as 'persons,' which means your claim the unborn have always been recognized as such are false.
If they were born they were persons.
None her but you have claimed such. If those people they killed were born, they were persons.
Nope. It means they didn't consider the contents of a woman's womb to be a person, no more than the Constitution does.
Throughout history the contents of a woman's womb have not been considered to be persons. They aren't now, except by a handful of extremists. There's no question those of other races were persons, they were born.
An unborn member of homo sapiens has never been universally recognized as a 'person.' That's my argument.
It is you who are hung up on the denial of differences between born and unborn. It is you who are hung up on the fact the unborn have never been recognized as persons entitled to any rights.
You can't prove what is killed in an abortion is a person. I have done everything I can to help you. I posted every instance of the usage of the word in the Constitution. I even bolded the words for you. Yet, you come up with nothing.
Not under the Constitution.
It's not a logical fallacy at all. We are discussing the fact the unborn can be killed because they aren't persons due rights, or don't possess legal personhood. We are not discussing Random House definitions.
That would be true if the Constitution recognized those not born as persons. It doesn't. Therefore, they have no rights.
Oh I got it alright.
Except for the tiny fact the unborn aren't persons with respect to the 14th Amednemt. We've already covered this, as well as the reasons why, as well as what would result have Blackmun had ignored precedent. Not to mention the absurdity of counting the unborn in section 2 of the amendment.
You forgot it repeatedly.
Determine for which it is physically impossible ANY RIGHTS and for which it is physically incapable to exercise at least some rights and there is your answer.
But I am, because I no more ignore the differences between born and unborn than the Constitution does.
I don't know. Specify what you mean by 'non-viable children' - born or not? I do know viable unborn children aren't persons, according to the Constitution.
Both are persons with respect to the Constitution.
Both are persons with respect to the Constitution, provided you mean born children.
If they are born they are persons. If not, then not. This isn't rocket science.
If they are born they possess it. If not, then not.
That depends on whether they are born or not.
The Constitution is quite clear in who it addresses. Roe is clear. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is clear.
You've established no such fact, whereas I have provided proof as to why Blackmun had no choice but to admit fetuses weren't persons with respect to the 14th Amendment. If he had found otherwise we would have been left with nonsense on liberty and property in the 14th Amendment or he would have been an activist judge. You've offered not a shred of evidence to support your claim here.

reply from: MattG

Then, why are the Unborn forced to pay with their lives for the convenience of their mothers.
Biology does not make mistakes. It does, sometimes, what it is asked to do, even if the question (pregnancy?) was not in the mind of the operators.
Abortion is wholly natural. Up to 50% of all fertilized eggs result in spontaneous abortion, ie, no human intervention. Nature creates miscarriages and so do we.
Agreed, felatlisa, if and only if it is truly a miscarriage, a natural expulsion of a non-viable human being, but the abortion being discussed here is induced abortion, where a perfectly healthy woman with a perfectly healthy unborn baby decides on her own or is forced by others to pay another (the abortionist) to end the life of her child at any time in the pregnancy. That, fetalisa, is unnatural and one day soon, will again be a crime, even in the few states it was not a crime before the Court's Twentieth Century Dred Scott Decision(Roe v. Wade) or do you still think that people(oops biological units) with ROOTS in Africa are not and can never be citizens? Most of us just celebrated MLK Day in memory of a great man who had his life taken from him. He had much more to give us; that is gone forever. Over 47,000,000 unborn babies had much to give us, too. Their gifts to society are gone forever. When will the weight of this collective guilt turn your heart? God bless you, fetalisa. Listen for His call.

reply from: bradensmommy

what people need to know is that there is a difference between a miscarriage and an abortion.

reply from: AshMarie88

Pro-choicers label abortion photos "fake" yet can't dig up any of their own "true" abortion photos?
Why do they always say they're fake?

reply from: bradensmommy

Thats because some of them live in a world where abortions are okay and it doesn't do anything to a "blob of tissue"

reply from: MattG

You might try this passage from Isaiah for phrophesy about Jesus
However, I am not an exegete, but know that the writers of the Gospels had more documents available to them that now no longer exist.
I imagine you follow closely the weather conditions where you live that includes viewing a daily Weather Report on television or the computer.
On each of them the times for Sunset and Sunrise are usually given; they are good times to know. If you do, then you are more a supporter of the Inquisition than of Galileo, because he and we know that the sun neither rises nor having risen, sets. The Bible has much to teach you, fetalisa, not about our nature; about your nature and Nature's God.

reply from: MattG

What you mean is that there is a difference between a miscarriage and an induced abortion, chemical or surgical. Chemical abortions with BCPs are the silent killer, RU-486 brings other problems. Tell us, lady, what the differences are. Both result in the death of children. In the first, it( a spontaneous abortion) is caused by chemical or physiological deficienies in the maturing unborn baby; in the second, the 'abortion' is caused by an abortionist who for a large sum of money invades a pregnant woman's body and in one of several ways removes a perfect new human life or one with medically correctable anomalies, some time killing it after it is mostly removed and sometime destroying it within the womb and taking it out piece by piece and assembling the body outside, to make sure everything is gotten out. Sepsis can result from a mistake at this point. Women have died following induced abortions because of it.
Following Miscarriages, great saddness is the almost immediate reaction of the parents and their families. Following induced abortions an almost immediate feeling of relief is replaced sometimes years later by great saddness. Let the children live; what do you fear?
Thank you for the opportunity to talk.

reply from: Sigma

The author of that section spends more time ranting about a Constitutional right to privacy then she does addressing Roe on it's own merit. The right to privacy has a longer history than Roe, and abortion absolutely logically fits within that umbrella. She condemns interpreting the existence of rights, then turns around and says that precedence interprets different rights then the right to privacy. It's amusing to read.
The critic of the Roe decision has little basis and spends her time taking potshots at the precedent supporting the Roe decision instead of focusing on the point of the discussion, namely taking Roe on it's own merits.
Ederlina also notes: Even Justice Scalia - a vocal critic Roe - acknowledged that the Court is incapable of determining when life begins. In his Casey opinion, he wrote: "The whole argument of abortion opponents is that what the Court calls the fetus and what others call the unborn child is a human life. Thus, whatever answer Roe came up with after conducting its 'balancing' is bound to be wrong, unless it is correct that the human fetus is in some critical sense merely potentially human. There is of course no way to determine that as a legal matter; it is in fact a value judgment. Some societies have considered newborn children not yet human, or the incompetent elderly no longer so." Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 982 (1992) (Scalia, J. concurring in part, dissenting in part)

reply from: fetalisa

I am not so egotistical to believe this forum wouldn't survive without my keyboard. Your point here is a non-point if there ever was one. Had I been aborted, I would never know the difference, nor would you, nor anyone else.
Because for all practical and legal purposes, they have no existence whatsoever. Likewise, had I been aborted, I would have had no practical nor legal existence whatsoever. This is elementary stuff that shouldn't require explanation for those paying attention.
Fine, then live your life as a slave to biology and recognize that the normal majority of the population won't make that same silly choice that you did.
Also, if biology doesn't make mistakes, what do you call harlequin & waterhead babies, or appendixes, for that matter?
If you would be so kind, I would like to see the source of your definition of the word 'miscarriage' that incorporates 'non-viable' with respect to zygote, embryo or fetus?
So if a beaver builds a damn, we call that dam 'natural.' Likewise, if humans build a dam, we call that 'natural' as well, since it is a medical and scientific fact that humans are as much a part of the animal kingdom as the beavers.
Therefore, abortion is just as natural as miscarriage. In the case of abortion and miscarriage, the agent of causation are naturally occurring elements in the natural environment.
In other words, abortion is perfectly natural. We produce them as well, in many cases even better, than nature can. So did you have a point here you wished to address?
Do you even bother to think at all about what you are saying before you post? It certainly doesn't look like it.
Consider the following examples;
Situation A - An 18 year old girl, at her high school graduation, receives a proposal of marriage at the graduation from her boyfriend. She says no to marriage at that time. Why? Because she wants to go to college, get her 4 year degree, work for two years to have at least a somewhat comfortable income, BEFORE she settles down. She wants to remain with her boyfriend and tells him she will marry him when she is 26, not before.
Situation B - An 18 year old girl, at her high school graduation, discovers she's pregnant by her boyfriend. She doesn't want a child at that time. Why? Because she wants to go to college, get her 4 year degree, work for two years to have at least a somewhat comfortable income, BEFORE she settles down. She aborts and carries on with her plans.
Pick either situation above, whether A or B. The girl has used her brain, which occurred NATURALLY in her head, to plan her life and make decisions about how, when, and where she wants to do things. It's totally natural for her to wish to do things in a certain order. It's totally natural for her to not wish to have to struggle through college with a baby in tow. It is perfectly natural for her to delay motherhood until after college when she will be in an improved financial situation to car for her child.
I am sorry you believe that if she uses her brain to chart the course of her own life, which is not your business anyway, that is somehow 'unnatural.'
What in the hell have you been smoking? You REALLY need to check recent developments in South Dakota. After doing that, you might want to ask yourself why abortion is illegal in Iran and if you really want to live in a country with laws which mirror Iran's. And let's not even begin discussing the pitiful turnout at Tiller's clinic on the Roe anniversary this year. Suffice it to say, there certainly weren't the hundreds of thousands seen at past events.
Slaves were born and so, entitled to rights under the Constitution. Those not born, are not legal persons and therefore, entitled to no rights under the law. Gee, I wonder if the turnout at Tiller's clinic was so low because of the 33 years of exceedingly weak and immaterial arguments which compare born to unborn? Hmm, the public still isn't buying it, yet the lifers keep trotting out these silly and inane comparisons, even when the lifers know the public isn't stupid enough to fall for it.
You have no way of knowing this. For all you know, they could have been 47,000,000 more jailbirds in prison. It doesn't matter anyway. So what if the girl in Situation A aborts today? She can be pregnant again tomorrow, next month, next year, etc.
You don't have a shred of proof that even one of them would have been a gift to society. For all you know they could have been another Dahmer or Ripper. Is dishonest pretense all you can offer to support your viewpoint? It is even more clear why the turnout at Tiller's clinic was so low this year on the Roe anniversary.
I do not now, nor have I ever felt, even the slightest sense of guilt due to abortion. There's certainly no collective guilt tied to abortion either. We set mousetraps because we don't want mice in our homes. We abort because we don't want children at certain times. There's no difference between the two at all. We buy cars and homes when we are ready to, and not before. There's no reason to feel guilt over abortion. It's a choice like every other choice we make in life, depending on whether it does or does not fit our circumstances.
Well may Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy all smile upon you too!
Oh I heard his call. I read it actually. It said we are to buy, sell and own people from surrounding nations. Jehovah himself said we could even make slaves of little children and own them as our property. He also said we should give our property, I mean our slaves, a day off and that we should covet the property, I mean slaves, of our neighbors. That's not surprising coming from a God who had 2 bears tear 42 children apart simply because they called a prophet 'bald-head.'
I also don't believe homes can be infected with leprosy, which can be cured by chanting incantations over the blood of dead birds. I really can't support a God who is so stupid he would punish all of mankind because some woman ate a fruit off a tree. I mean, even 5 year olds know you punish the wrong-doers, not every single person that will ever be born. But, your Jehovah doesn't have the sense of a 5 year old. So you see, your God is way to stupid and wholly immoral with respect to slavery, for me to ever take him seriously.
Besides, he cares not for us. He killed 200,000 people in a tsunami. Let me ask you, if you had been God, and you saw the tsunami was headed to kill that many people, would you have turned the tsunami a different direction so 200,000 people could live? I would. But your God didn't. Some say it was our fault because we didn't have a warning system set in place to warn the people in the path of the tsunami. You know what that tells me? We as people must protect ourselves with warning systems. If we must protect ourselves, because we can't depend on your God to protect us from the tsunami, what use or good is your God? We can't depend on him for a thing. We've no choice but to protect ourselves from tsunamis because your God cars not if 200,000 of us die in the tsunami. So we set up our own warning systems, because we know your God cares not a whit if we die.

reply from: fetalisa

There sure is. We are much better at producing miscarriages than nature is.

reply from: fetalisa

Because you claim to value unborn children, but you trot out pictures of someone's dead children to support an agenda, which means you don't care about dead unborn children as much as you claim. Your tactics are shady and suspicious, bringing doubt upon your own claims. If you cared so much about dead unborn kids, you wouldn't be using them to manipulate people emotionally into NOT having abortions. Given a superior argument, photos of someone's dead children wouldn't be necessary.
Further, all we see in such photos are dead fetuses. Those fetuses could have been from miscarriages, from induced abortions or could be Laci Peterson's. We have no way whatsoever of knowing those photos are what you claim they are. We have no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding the photos, because you claim dead unborn kids bother you, yet you gleefully trot the photos out for display. If you truly believed those photos were of dead people, you would at least show a minimal respect for the dead and the families affected by that death, thus demonstrating moral character. You instead demonstrate the total opposite in your very shady and questionable tactics.

reply from: fetalisa

There is no way for either of those amendments to have any application to those not born at all. Additionally, birth is a condition of personhood within the Constitution by very clear implications, in that all rights addressed concern rights which could only be exercised by born persons and for which all rights would be physically impossible for those not born to exercise. There is no way possible at all for the 14th Amendment to apply to those not born, because of the liberty and property issues which appear in the statement, which have no application to the unborn at all. The entirety of the document is addressing born persons in every case where the word person or persons appear. Your points here would stand ONLY if we ignore the context of the usage of the words person and persons throughout the document.
You have done no such thing. There is no possibility for what you suggest due to the usage of the word person or persons throughout the document refers to rights which could only be exercised by those born. Amendment 14 leaves a logically inconsistent result if applied to the unborn. Amendment 5 does as well as it would leave the usage of the words logically inconsistent in every other case where they appear in the Constitution.
That's an immaterial, irrelevant non-point if I ever heard one. It doesn't matter how you define those not born, as individual or part of the mother. That's immaterial. The fetus has no right to use the body of the mother any more than you have the right to take my blood for a transfusion. We are not going to grant rights to unborn non-persons that born persons don't even enjoy. And this is the crux of the issue and also why the prolife movement fails repeatedly in changing the law.
The only ignorance shown here is your own. You think immaterial and irrelevant non-points have any bearing on the issue at all. It no more matters when life begins than it matters whether we consider the unborn as part of the mother or not. It doesn't change the legal issues no matter how these non-points go.
No but the idea of 'ensoulment' closely mirrors the idea of self-awareness of consciousness, which are traits of personhood that the unborn lack.
It never was an issue. They didn't look these things up for spiritual reasons. They were looking for past precedents and also looking at history, in an attempt to make an informed decision.
To say 'when life begins' is the issue is equally ridiculous. But carry on pretending that it matters and abortion will be legal for another 34 years.
It certainly was valid for historical reasons.
Do you understand yet that I don't give a damn about Random House definitions, which have no bearing on our law, nor our society? The Roe court determined they weren't legal persons, which means they don't have the same rights as born persons, which means they aren't legally equivalent to born persons. That's all that matters to me because that's all any in our society are obligated to acknowledge.
Have you ever heard of a zygote, embryo or fetus? Did you know they aren't legal persons?
You are legally incorrect here. The unborn are not legal persons and therefore not entitled to the rights of legal persons.
So you define and even see the unborn as persons. Tell me something I didn't already know. 33 years of the same tired and ridiculously stupid and wholly illogical arguments over semantics and abortion is still legal. Hmmmmm, what does that tell you?
The Constitution is one good example, or do you think our founding fathers were addressing unborn when discussing the right to own property?
If only we would choose to ignore the context of usage of the word 'person' or 'persons' as they appear in the Constitution to allow your silly interpretations of the 5th and 14th Amendments to stand.
What is your evidence? Oh LOOK! Life begins at conception so abortion should be illegal! We've known life begins at conception. That's nothing new or extraordinary to say such. Yet you somehow think by magically repeating it abortion will be banned. No one cares when life begins. It doesn't matter. You abort today, you can get pregnant again tomorrow, next month, next year, etc. Or we can whip up as many fertilized eggs as we might need in petri dishes.
There is no parental responsibility law which states humans must be slaves of nature, biology and our reproductive systems and we must turn the clock back to before safe abortion and birth control were invented.
Born children do indeed possess legal personhood and the rights associated with that. That has nothing at all to do with zygotes, embryos or fetuses.
That's because you are too blinded by your own ideology to see what the overwhelming majority in our society can see so clearly. The unborn are not the same as the born. Until they breathe air, they aren't equal. We've no reason to treat them too either. You can't take my kidney to continue living and an unborn can't use the uterus of another without her permission either, in order to continue living. All you are suggesting here is that the unborn be granted rights that born people don't even possess. And the sad part is, you truly can not see nor understand why the public won't allow you to enact an idea so dreadfully stupid and silly.
Not your child, not your body, not your business. See, that's another thing about the people in our society. They get real suspicious when the see people trying to stick their noses into other people's business. It makes us wonder why your time is not spent getting your own house in order. It's not your business.
That's because the lifers think their debating tactic of continually comparing born to unborn is shear genius and the lifers truly believe people are stupid enough to buy it. Go back and read the Constitution and see if you can figure out why it wouldn't be lawful nor rational to kill a born child. You are smart enough to figure that one out yourself, I hope.
And Hindus think we hamburgers should be banned as well, but no one cares and hamburgers are legal. The Hindus point is better than yours though. At least cows show some kind of limited awareness and consciousness.
And consistently rejected by the public at large because the public knows the difference between born and unborn whether you do or not.
It's not consistent and makes no sense to you because you pretend born and unborn are the same. The public at large is smart enough to see and know the vast differences, even after 34 years of the same tired, illogical comparisons of born to unborn and illogical arguments regarding the same. Abortion therefore, remains legal.
What's stupid is to say well if people think it's ok to kill their unborn children, why they might decide it's ok to kill their born children too. Yeah, let's forget the deep attachments people form with their newborns, and especially for those who had the option of abortion but chose birth because they truly wanted kids. Oh yeah, that mass slaughter of born children has been going on for all 34 years since Roe, hasn't it? Oh wait, that doomsday scenario never happened, did it?
That's horse***** and you know it. I don't see the unborn as persons in any sense of the word, nor does our law, nor do many, many, many people in our society. It's your opinion they are persons due the same rights as born persons, nothing more, nothing less. And if is a fringe opinion in our society, held only by extremists.
The equation person=human being does not automatically translate into unborn=legal person. But pretend it does all you want. Meanwhile, abortion remains legal.
That's exactly why you have to use the phrase 'unborn persons.' If you say women around the world are murdering persons, people would have no clue what you are talking about, which is why you must qualify the word 'person' with 'unborn' as you did. You negate your own argument before you can even complete it.
I certainly can. They aren't considered persons legally. They are only considered persons by a few fringe extremists, like the handful who showed up at Tiller's office on the Roe anniversary.
Yeah that little pesky document which uses the words 'person' and 'persons' numerous times, referring to born people is every case, doesn't show a traditional usage of those words at all, does it?
The point is there is a difference between physically incapable of exercising some rights vs physically impossible to exercise ANY rights, which is how we know the Constitution addresses born persons.
You don't have to convince me of your nonsense. You have to convince the voters. Oh wait. They have heard this nonsense for 34 years. They still are not convinced. Abortion remains legal. I wonder why that is? Perhaps the public isn't buying your Random House word games either?
Why sure you have! "Your arguments are SO convincing that abortion is still legal 34 years after Roe. Wow! You lifers really are good at this.
For the time the unborn is inside of her it sure is.
Why do all lifers get off on belaboring the obvious? Hey, why don't you tell me next that life begins at conception?
I know whose body the fetus resides in and it isn't the man's, it's not the car, it's not the house, etc. It most certainly is a part of the woman's body for the time it is in the womb. This is exactly why the woman decides whether to continue the pregnancy or not. The unborn may not use her body without her permission, just like you can't take my blood without my permission in order to continue living your own life. We won't grant rights to the unborn that even born people don't enjoy. That would be logically inconsistent.
You really love to create strawmen. I guess you must since you lack any reasonable arguments.
My point is, the unborn are not addressed in the Constitution for two reasons;
1. It is physically impossible for the unborn to exercise rights outlined in the Constitution.
2. The context of the usage of the words 'person' and 'persons' as they appear in the Constitution, address born people in every case.
You responded with some bs point that people in a coma can't exercise some rights either. I noted the differences as follows;
1. unborn = physically impossible to exercise any constitutional rights
2. physically incapacitated = physically impossible to exercise some constitutional rights.
For example, in the case of a coma, my friends property rights did not terminate while she was in the coma. However, in the case of an unborn, it is physically impossibly for them to own property and so physically impossible to exercise property rights.
In other words, the Constitution does not apply to those not born since it is physically impossible for any constitutional rights to be exercised by those not born. Therefore, the intent of the authors of the Constitution was never to address those not born.
In the case of someone physically incapacitated, they may not be physically capable of exercising all rights, but they can exercise at least some rights. This is not the case with the unborn for whom it is physically impossible to exercise ANY constitutional rights.
You ignored the point because you had to since it was devastating to your case.
You've not prove this at all. You claim the right to life in the 14th amendment applies to newborns when, if we accepted your claim, it would leave a logically inconsistent result on the property issue, for which it is physically impossible for unborns to exercise. Additionally, your interpretation requires that we ignore the usage of the words 'person' or 'persons' everywhere else they appear in the Constitution, in order to accept your claim. It is utter foolishness to see the 40 some odd references to rights only the born can enjoy, yet ignore that context for your two extremely weak and iffy examples.
A newborn's speech requires air move through the lungs. The unborn lack the ability to move air through the lungs and therefore lack the ability of speech. I won't even ask for evidence an unborn 'coos' because it is total falsehood to suggest such for an entity that has no ability to move air through the lungs in order to produce speech. And you still don't know why abortion is legal? You claim unborns can coo like newborns, yet you have not a clue why our society aren't buying your arguments?
Just because the lifers included the unborn under the umbrellas of 'human being' or 'person' in the late 20th century, it does not necessarily follow the authors of the Constitution did the same.
You don't even think about what you are saying before you type it in. If I tell someone I miscarried a person, it sounds as if I was carrying a friend on my back and dropped them on the ground. It's entirely confusing and makes no sense to say such a thing, which is why you never hear someone say I miscarried a person. It is only the extremist fringe attempting to redefine the words 'person' to include those not born. 34 years later abortion is still legal because the public knows how bogus it is. (Which is why we don't say we miscarried a person.)
It makes perfect sense. Persons have always been born. This is how myself, everyone in my life, my family, everyone I know, have always used that word. Some extremist fringe group pops up in the late 20th century and claims those not born are now also persons. Myself, my friends, my family, everyone I know, then think about how it sounds to say, 'I miscarried a person.' It is so ridiculous that it is laughable. It's so confusing that none will have a clue what you mean if you say such a thing. So, we stick with the usage of the word as it has always been for us. We care not about the extremist fringe and how they wish to redefine common words because they lack valid arguments to convince the public to accept their viewpoint. We go on about our lives using the word person as we always have and so, our communication remains very clear and we each knows where the other stands. And we laugh at the thought of hearing someone actually say, "Oh no! I miscarried a person!" It's too stupid to even suggest such a usage.
Oh yes. I don't doubt for a minute it was a conspiracy, probably backed by the Illuminati. And you still truly, for the life of you, can't understand why abortion is legal? I feel sorry for you man.
Riiiiiiiiight! Because granting fetuses the right to use the body of another without permission, which is a right even born people don't enjoy, would create your utopia on earth and free up the prolife movement from the Illuminati conspiracy. I predict abortion will always remain legal. The prolife arguments will insure that one, no doubt.
Which would only be valid if we completely ignored every use of those words which very obviously reference born persons, which is easily shown by reading the rights discussed.
Yet abortion was legal in numerous societies throughout history because none viewed abortion as killing a person nor the equivalent of murder. In some societies that did criminalize it, it was a misdemeanor, nor worse than a speeding ticket. But you would have us pretend unborn were considered persons throughout history, which would mean abortion would have been universally criminalized throughout history, and abortion would have been legally equivalent to murder throughout history, which is not the case at all. Therefore, yet another of your claims is wholly false. You shouldn't even try crap like this when the history of such things is so easily available. If you want to convince society the unborn were always considered persons, then you must also convince society that abortion was always the legal equivalent of murder. To do that, you must revise history books and print your lies and feed only those lies to the public in every case where abortion is discussed. If you can't do that, history proves your claims false and many will consider you a liar for it.
All of which is wholly immaterial. Many in our society do not buy into the fraud produced by the extremist fringe that the unborn are persons. Gee, I wonder if that's why abortion is legal 34 years after Roe. Ya think?
I know it is difficult for you, but where it states a person must be 25 years old and a citizen for 7 years to become a senator, some of us have no doubts at all that it is discussing born persons. When you see 40 some odd examples of the words 'person' or 'persons' in the Constitution and every single instance could only apply to born persons, some of us are very clear on the implications, no matter how difficult it might be for you to grasp such simple points. It's called comprehension but it's not as difficult as it sounds.
Yet how many times have you claimed throughout your last post that the 'right to life' in the 14th Amendment applies to those not born? You have been wilfully deceitful every single time you have trotted out the falsehood that the 14th Amendment applies to those not born. Yet you've not a clue why abortion remains legal 34 years after Roe. Did your mama not teach you that deceit causes any credibility you might have had to be lost?
In other words, for all practical and legal purposes, fetuses aren't persons in any legal or practical sense. That's yet another reason why you don't hear people say, "OOPS! I miscarried a person!"
Women were born, and therefore citizens under the 14th Amendment, and therefore entitled to all Constitutional rights.
What's ridiculous is to grant rights to the unborn to use the body of another without permission, when we don't grant that same right to born persons. It would not only be logically inconsistent, but would be wholly immoral. The unborn are not better than you or I. Therefore, they are not due rights greater than rights you or I enjoy. I, as a born person, can't take your blood from you wit

reply from: fetalisa

You might try to ask Jews why they don't accept Jesus as their Messiah. It's very simple. Jesus did not meet the criteria for the Jewish Messiah. For one, the Messiah was to be a descendant of David. Jesus was not a descendant of David. Joseph was, but Joseph was not Jesus' father (allegedly). Jesus daddy was a ghost. I already know your answer to this. Mary was a descendant of David. That's all well and good except the Hebrew society was patriarchal. This meant rights of kingship flowed through the line of the father, not the mother. Don't take my word for it, read the laws.
Additionally, the Jewish Messiah was to be mortal, not a god. Look up Cyrus in Isaiah. Cryus, a mortal man, was called Messiah or anointed. These are just two examples of why Jesus (if he ever even existed) was not and could not be the Jewish Messiah. He didn't fit the criteria AT ALL.
And really, you shouldn't point to random nonsense in the bible to convince people. Sometimes it's best to not make the assumption that your audience is ignorant. For instance, I could never, ever, ever, in a million years accept the bible has containing any truth whatsoever. Daniel is a good example. Whoever the authors of Daniel were, they so completely and totally slaughtered Persian history that it is unbelievable. Think about if National Enquirer decided to retell Persian history. That's exactly what Daniel is. We know Daniel is entirely false historically, because the archaeological record, in the form of the Ugarit texts and others, give us the historically accurate truth about Persian history. The authors of Daniel had REALLY bad sources and it shows.
So you see, if you want to convince me your pet religious fantasy has any truth at all, you must first explain to me how your God would let such gaping errors as Persian history end up so terribly slaughtered and wrong in a book like Daniel. If you can't explain that to me, I have no reason at all to accept Daniel, or any other book in the bible, as having any kind of accuracy or truth in it at all.
Another one would be Ezekiel screwing up so royally in claiming Neb would take Tyre. Neb had the city under seige for 13 years, but he never, EVER, took possession of the city, much less did he leave it 'bare as a rock for spreading nets' as the authors of Ezekiel prophesied. That's right. A totally failed prophecy in the book your God allegedly inspired.
Sorry, but these kinds of errors sounds suspiciously like the work of men prone to mistakes, not the work of some perfect God. And you still haven't addressed the silliness I earlier raised.
I mean are you truly Christian yourself? Did you take slaves from surrounding nations as Jehovah commanded? Have you made slaves of little kids whom you now own as property? Do you believe children who talk back to their parents should be put to death as the bible teaches? See, I can't believe immoral horse***** like that. The fact the ten commandments tells me to give my slaves the day off and to not covet the slaves of my neighbors is thoroughly disgusting to me from a moral standpoint. What makes it even worse is the pretense that some God would tell us to buy, sell and own each other like pigs.
There's no need to belabor the obvious.
Don't even get me on the gospels. You have four stories, none of which agree, telling ludicrous tales such as people have to return to their city of birth for a census. Puhleeeeze! No government is stupid enough to disrupt their society by requiring mass migrations home to be counted, You simply count the people where they are. And don't get me started on dates of Jesus' birth and how those conflict ten years depending on which gospel you read.
The sun also doesn't stop in the sky, since such a thing is impossible, no matter what the bible says. The sun doesn't move across the sky, instead, the earth revolves around the sun. Once again, the bible is completely wrong.
The bible teaches much about nature, stating homes can have leprosy which can be cured by chanting incantations over the blood of dead birds. Let me ask you, if you had leprosy, would you treat your leprosy as the bible states or would you go see a doctor?
You are correct when you state the bible teaches many things. The bible taught me about marketting and how NOT to market something.
You see, the bible has been marketed improperly throughout history. We have been told it contains no errors, it has many prophecies which came true and it contains correct morality. This is no different than diet pills sold on television. You won't lose weight by taking a pill. It must be done with diet and exercise. The same is true of the bible. You have failed prophecies of the destruction of Tyre in Ezekiel, entirely incorrect Persian history in Daniel and a God who tells us to buy slaves from Canada and Mexico, even purchase kids from there, who will then become property we own which we can will to our descendants. You are Christian so I am sure you are ok with owning slaves since Jehovah himself said it was ok. See, I can't make that leap. Jehovah is wrong. We should not buy slaves from surrounding nations nor should we makes slaves of kids. We should not put children to death who talk back to their parents. I am sad for Jehovah that he lacked the sense to understand removing the Nintendo from a smart-mouthed kid could do wonders for his attitude. Instead, Jehovah's answer was kill them. How weak do you have to be to not realize you can motivate kids without striking/hurting/abusing them?
It's a shame really that the bible has been marketed as being moral when it tells us to kill kids who talk back and to make slaves of others. It's sad we were told the bible was perfect, when it so totally slaughters Persian history. It's sad we were told the bible is perfect, yet the city of Tyre even mentioned Ezekiel's prophecy of destruction by Neb on it's website, yet the city is still there today.
Perhaps it's not so much as a marketing problem as an editing problem. If someone had ever bothered to edit the bible and remove all the loony crap like killing kids who talk back, the slavery stuff, the false prophecies, etc. maybe then it could have at least been believable as far as perfection.
Oh I am well aware of my own nature, as well as being aware of Jehovah and Jesus' nature. I don't get Jesus. When you are living in the times of slavery in Rome, and you know you are going to die anyway, why aren't you preaching against slavery in an attempt to end it? Why waste time throwing money changers out of temple? Would it not have been better to work to end slavery since you know you are going to die anyway? Why not do something useful and good for mankind by fighting slavery? Paul was no better, even telling a slave to go back to his master. It's disgusting really.
Fortunately for me, I know donkeys and snake don't speak, no matter what the bible says. I know slavery is wrong, no matter what Jehovah said (allegedly). I know it is entirely stupid to kill a child who talks back, no matter what the bible says.
And let's not even talk about how even 5 year olds have enough sense to know if someone does wrong, you only punish the wrong-doers. But Jehovah didn't have the sense of a 5 year old. Eve eats a fruit, gets Adam to eat a fruit, and does Jehovah punish the wrong-doers? No! He punishes every person who will ever be born! Why? Because Jehovah doesn't understand what a 5 year old child does understand. If someone does wrong, you only punish those who actually did wrong, not every single person who will ever be born.
Hell the bible, in it's entirety reads like the National Enquirer. Can't you see the story about a snake speaking on the front page? No way can I take any of it seriously. The histories are wrong. The prophecies are wrong. The morality of the bible is thoroughly disgusting. Would you ask a friend to kill his child to prove his loyalty to you? I wouldn't. There are other ways to determine loyalty besides that, but poor Jehovah was just too stupid to figure these things out.
Anyway Matt, might point is, you and I are different types of people. You don't care if Tyre never got destroyed. You don't care if Persian history is completely wrong. You don't care that Jehovah provides instruction on slavery as well as how to kill your kids who talk back to you. You find nothing wrong with these things morally, whereas, I do. That's why I don't believe as you do.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yes we do - abortionists. Or should I say, former abortionists.

reply from: yoda

Yes we do - abortionists. Or should I say, former abortionists.
I notice THAT babykiller didn't offer to tell us where the "real" photos are, did he?
Babykillers are like whinny little kids who don't get their way...... they just pitch tantrums.

reply from: faithman

Yes we do - abortionists. Or should I say, former abortionists.
I notice THAT babykiller didn't offer to tell us where the "real" photos are, did he?
Babykillers are like whinny little kids who don't get their way...... they just pitch tantrums.
Thqat is why the fiber optic pictures are so much more powerful. They pro-aborts can not deny their authintisity, because their is documentation out the wazoo, and it is the same fiber optic technology, and cutting edge medical science that is used in other aplications, such as colon inspection, and searching out artery blockage. The pictures in my sig can not be legitamitly denied. It is science fact plain and simply. The same imagry seen On PBS.

reply from: fetalisa

Actually we laugh uproariously at the utter failure of the bogus prolife arguments, while meanwhile revelling in the fact abortion remains legal, in spite of 34 years of bogus, BS prolife arguments. I thought you put me on ignore? Did you change your mind? Well I am glad to see you are alive and kicking, I guess, while contributing oh-so-much wisdom and enlightenment to the topic.

reply from: fetalisa

Awww, your gory little pictures haven't changed the public's mind at all. Do think that might be because of the hypocrisy you display in championing the right to life of the unborn, while completely disrespecting the dead and the families of the dead by using your gory photos? You've not a single leg of morality on which to stand to convince anyone of the correctness of your position, but only because you lack the basic morality to respect the dead.
No wonder the public isn't convinced by your photos. Lacking any valid, convincing argument which would convince the public to ban abortion, you've no choice but to disrespect the dead and families of the dead by using your pictures. Yet you can't for the life of you figure out why such tactics still don't work 34 years after Roe and you still can't figure out such tactics are part of the reason abortion remains legal.
Truly, the best weapon the prochoice side has in the abortion debate, are the very tactics the prolife side so willingly uses. Abortion will always be legal because the silly and stupid arguments of the prolife side absolutely guarantees it.

reply from: AshMarie88

Really? That's funny, because just a couple months ago a couple pro-lifers and I got a pro-choicer to our side!! She had never seen an abortion photo before and when she did - SWITCH!
Photos have changed lots of peoples' minds!

reply from: fetalisa

That doesn't mean your arguments have changed the mind of the public. Abortion is still legal dear, 34 years after Roe and after 34 years of your BS arguments. The public at large has not been swayed at all, which is why abortion is still legal.
You are so proud of yourself because you found a gullible idiot who would believe whatever the first fool she ran across told her. Gee, you convinced someone too stupid to research the issue and think for herself. What else did you do to her besides show her your gory photos? Did you also tell her abortion causes breast cancer and will leave her infertile, contradicting all known data on file with the CDC?
The fact you are proud of it only shows how weak and simple-minded you are.
I have never claimed people foolish enough to be swayed by emotional appeals rather than reason didn't exist.

reply from: AshMarie88

Nothing is wrong with emotion. If you show no emotion at all for something, you obviously have no conscience.
It's reasonable to use emotions!

reply from: fetalisa

You've no choice but to rely on emotional appeals since you lack a rational argument to prove your case. Your tactics in this are very telling.
I noticed you didn't address what scientifically unfounded lies you told her to convince her not to have an abortion. Funny how you have to rely on lies to get another to change their mind. It speaks worlds about the true value of your arguments.

reply from: AshMarie88

You've no choice but to rely on emotional appeals since you lack a rational argument to prove your case. Your tactics in this are very telling.
I noticed you didn't address what scientifically unfounded lies you told her to convince her not to have an abortion. Funny how you have to rely on lies to get another to change their mind. It speaks worlds about the true value of your arguments.
I never said she was going to abort. She wasn't even pregnant. She was just one of those uneducated choicers who changed her mind once she saw the truth.

reply from: AshMarie88

And why is it that I see so many choicers get emotional, sad, and pissed when they hear of so called "illegal abortions" being performed by women?
Can't you choicers just stop with your emotions?!

reply from: fetalisa

Because illegal abortions lead to senseless deaths of women.
It's not an emotional appeal to state illegal abortions result in the death of women, no more than stating speeding can result in senseless deaths. That's a simple statement of facts. I don't have to provide pictures of women dead from abortion or people dead at accident scenes to convince anyone of these positions.

reply from: yoda

Isn't it awful, Marie? Those silly old choicers just gush and gush with their emotional clap-trap, and never make a lick of sense!

reply from: fetalisa

Yet th public supports my side, not yours. Even South Dakota isn't pursuing a ban again, as you expected they would. Enjoy your life in the extremist fringe.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

I have to laugh at you.
I really do have to laugh at you fetalisa.
You assume that because a fetus cannot do those things, the fetus is not a person and not covered by the declaration.
First off. YOU are the one who loves to throw medical arguements in to debates to prove your laws, then you yell at bradensmother for it. Its pathetic.
Second, can a newborn baby do any of those things that the fetus cannot?
No, it cannot. So then you are saying a born child isn't worthy of life.
Please explain how a newborn can own property.
A person under the legal age of 18 can't own too much property in the eyes of the law.
What about all those years that women couldn't own certain/any properties.
and in other countries?
Do all those things then make those other women/children/young adults not people?
and just because SCOTUS says something is true, doesn't make it true.
SCOTUS said that blacks were only 3/5 humans.
do you contend this to be true?
So. All your arguements not only (as always) contradict themselves, but they just aren't worth bothering.
Under you logic :
Newborn babies arent persons.
People with severe mental retardation aren't persons.
Babies not old enough to speak aren't persons.
African-americans are only 3/5 persons. (Since your logic supports that, how MUCH of persons are those other people?)
your logic also states that :
Medical knowledge cannot be used to show the err of a law, but once a law is made then medical knowledge can be used to support it.
Choose your faulty facts.
Then Get your faulty facts straight.
Make sure they don't contradict each other.
Get the guts to stick to those facts.
then come back to us and try to stand your ground.

reply from: fetalisa

I assume no such thing. The Constitution addresses born persons, which can be easily demonstrated by;
1. Noting all 48 instances where the word 'person' or 'persons' appear. In every case, it is discussing things only born people can do.
2. Noting that every right discussed in the Constitution are rights that only born people can participate in.
3. Noting that, at the time the Constitution was penned, the technology to keep zygotes, embryos and fetuses alive, outside the womb, prior to birth, did not exist. The authors of the Constitution would hardly be addressing situations impossible for them to face, due to lack of such technology.
A newborn sure can. They make sounds, which we call speech. It might not be speech like yours and mine, but it is speech nevertheless. A newborn can be christened. Newborns have the ability of free speech, as well as the ability to practice religion in the form of a christening. For unborns, such things are physically impossible.
My. my. Isn't little billy good at creating strawmen?
A good friend of mine inherited $18 million when she turned 25. That money was held for her in trust. How can you do that for an unborn? Go to the bank and tell them you need to open a trust account for an entity with no name and no birth date and see how far you get, OK?
You miss the point entirely. The point is not, well the unborn can't do these things, therefore they are not persons. The point we are arguing is, the Constitution does not address the unborn, for numerous reasons. Therefore, the unborn do not possess constitutional rights.
SCOTUS makes law, not truth. There's a difference.
I know. Isn't it amazing that slaves, being born people, were given 3/5 of personhood, in a sense. Simply by being born, their personhood was aknowledged, even if in a very limited and discriminatory way.
Such has never happened in the history of humanity concerning the unborn. There is not one single society throughout all of history that gave the unborn legal equivalence of the born.
Silly boy, why do you respond if it's not "worth bothering." Someone here most definitely is contradicting themselves, no doubt.
All of the above three are persons, simply because they are born. Persons come into existence at the moment of birth is what I believe.
Once again, you miss the point completely. The point is not the unborn aren't persons because they can't do a,b,c, or d. The point is, the unborn aren't legal person with rights, because the Constitution does not address the unborn in any way, shape or form. This is legal fact.
Anyone born is 100% person in my book, no matter their race or color. Hell, I have a cousin-in-law and an almost brother-in-law, both of whom are black. They would giggle incessantly over what you CLAIM I believe here.
Actually, medical law supports my viewpoint, not yours. According to you, at conception A PERSON comes into being. Yet, a week after conception, that zygote can split in two, producing TWINS, which clearly aren't A PERSON, as your pet fantasy here would lead us to believe.
My, my, my. Isn't little billy cute when he sticks his chest out and tries to act like a grown man? What a shame the logic of adulthood is so completely lost on him!

reply from: 4given

Originally posted by: fetalisa
Awww, your gory little pictures haven't changed the public's mind at all. Do think that might be because of the hypocrisy you display in championing the right to life of the unborn, while completely disrespecting the dead and the families of the dead by using your gory photos? You've not a single leg of morality on which to stand to convince anyone of the correctness of your position, but only because you lack the basic morality to respect the dead.
No wonder the public isn't convinced by your photos. Lacking any valid, convincing argument which would convince the public to ban abortion, you've no choice but to disrespect the dead and families of the dead by using your pictures. Yet you can't for the life of you figure out why such tactics still don't work 34 years after Roe and you still can't figure out such tactics are part of the reason abortion remains legal.
Clearly this is a derranged mind and is beyond reasonability. It is disgusting that such a corrupt individual is monopolizing so much time here, getting off on the savage mutilation of the unborn. Thinking about the disrespect for the dead brings to mind the many photographs of the trash cans full of murdered babies and their parts. The extent of her depravity is so heinous. I feel sick w/ pity for her.

reply from: fetalisa

WOW! 4given thinks that demonising all who disagree with his viewpoint will not only run the opposition off, but also convince society of his or her views! How utterly interesting!
Hey 4given, you and your ilk have been running all over the country for 34 years, flashing disgusting photos, screaming 'abortion is murder' and generally demonising all with whom you disagree,
What are the fruits of such labor?
ABORTION IS STILL LEGAL!
And not only that, the majority in our society STILL don't agree with your viewpoint;
"according to a poll by TNS released by the Washington Post and ABC News. 57 per cent of respondents believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases, while 42 per cent think the procedure should be illegal some or all of the time."
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/16664
And you can't f-r-i-g-g-i-n WAIT to hit that reply button and respond, can you 4given?
Carry on 4given! It has worked so well for 34 years to claim all who disagree with you are moral degenerates, hasn't it? Why even South Dakota wouldn't reconsider a ban on abortion, in spite of how hard you try to make out abortion to be equivalent to baby killing. Why is that 4given?
And the end results of all of your silly and ludicrous claims of blood libel are what? Oh, that's right, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/12/earlyshow/main1203514.shtml

reply from: 4given

WOW! 4given thinks that demonising all who disagree with his viewpoint will not only run the opposition off, but also convince society of his or her views! How utterly interesting!
You aren't implying because you are here as another abortion whore that you are my opposition?
Hey 4given, you and your ilk have been running all over the country for 34 years, flashing disgusting photos, screaming 'abortion is murder' and generally demonising all with whom you disagree,
What are the fruits of such labor?
ABORTION IS STILL LEGAL!
Because of a lack of education for one and then the evils in the world, like you for instance; reckless disregard for human life.
And not only that, the majority in our society STILL don't agree with your viewpoint;
That you are derranged? You aren't doing very well at convincing me otherwise. I think most people that support abortion are just ignorant to the facts.. Then there is the exception- those that are bound by iniquity and corruption."according to a poll by TNS released by the Washington Post and ABC News. 57 per cent of respondents believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases, while 42 per cent think the procedure should be illegal some or all of the time."
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/16664
And you can't f-r-i-g-g-i-n WAIT to hit that reply button and respond, can you 4given?
Carry on 4given! It has worked so well for 34 years to claim all who disagree with you are moral degenerates, hasn't it? Why even South Dakota wouldn't reconsider a ban on abortion, in spite of how hard you try to make out abortion to be equivalent to baby killing. Why is that 4given?
Because of the corruption in America. Like those expected to provide education to our children(PP in the schools) And a lack of adequate understanding as to what an abortion is.
And the end results of all of your silly and ludicrous claims of blood libel are what? Oh, that's right, [L=EVERYONE STILL KNOWS A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON, NOT EVEN CLOSE!]q]
Everyone" knows" that? Do you have any children? My children know that a fetus is a person.

reply from: fetalisa

Ok, so let me get this straight. The word 'person' or 'persons' appears 48 times in the Constitution. In every case where they appear, these words, via context, are obviously discussing born people and the rights they might enjoy, like freedom of speech or religion or a right to a fair trial. Yet you claim, in this one instance, that the word 'person' applies to the unborn, in spite of the fact, the word discusses born people and the rights they might enjoy, in ALL 48 instances where the words 'person' or 'persons' appear in the Constitution. We should deny the context of the words discussing born persons ALL THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT, and pretend this once instance in the 14th Amendment dissolves all other 47 instances of the word where the born are obviously discussed?
*snicker*
Further, in the passage cited, it is claimed no persons shall be denied of life, liberty or property. And we know the two examples of liberty and property have no application to the unborn, which means we haven o reason to believe ANY part of this passage has application to the unborn.
Further, we know Blackmun already pointed out the unborn were not constitutional persons, and he specifically stated the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the unborn, but we should believe you over a Justice who made the ruling, which now stands as precedent (well, really confirmed a historical precedent)?
Further, we know the authors of the Constitution had no ability to keep the unborn alive outside of the womb pre-birth, since they lacked the technology to do so, which means they wouldn't be writing ANYTHING AT ALL to address such a situation. Yet somehow, in spite of all this, we should believe the 14th Amendment has any application at all to the unborn?
Additionally, we know when judges interpret law, they first must look at the intent of the law at the time it was written. The 14th Amendment was written to address the rights of recently freed slaves, all of whom were born, yet you would have us deny this intent and pretend it somehow addresses the unborn?
Thanks, but not thanks. We know from the context of the usage of the words 'person' and 'persons,' in ALL 48 instances where these words appear, born people are being addressed. We know from the intent of the 14th Amendment at the time it was written, it also addressed born persons. We know from the Roe decision the unborn aren't covered under the 14th Amendment, which is exactly why abortion is legal. We know the authors of both the Constitution and the 14th Amendment had no ability whatsoever to keep the unborn alive outside of a uterus prior to birth, and so therefore would not have written anything addressing a situation technically impossible in their times.
Except that of the three examples of life, liberty and property, life is the only one that could possibly be construed to apply to the unborn. Since liberty and property very obviously does not apply to the unborn, it becomes clear from the context the 14th Amendment could not possibly apply to the unborn. If it did, we would have to deny the context within the amendment itself, as well as the context of the other 47 instances where the words 'person' or 'persons' appear in the document. That means, we would have to pretend the intent of the authors of the Constitution AND the 14th Amendment were writing law to address situations which were technically impossible to occur at the time the documents were written. (which is the ability to keep the unborn alive outside of a uterus prior to birth.)
You make a very far-fetched a totally irrational argument here, which requires one jump through way too many hoops and deny completely the context of the words 'person' or 'persons' as they appear throughout these documents.
Blackmun was entirely correct. All he did was look at our law, the English common law which preceded ours and the laws throughout history before that, in order to find a precedent where the word 'person' or 'persons' could be found to have any application at all to the unborn. And why look at English common law and laws from history before the time of English common law? Simple, the Constitution provided no such example where the word 'person' or 'persons' had been applied to the unborn. Had such a usage been found within the Constitution, there would have been no reason at all to view English common law, nor earlier law.
He found no such usage, which is why he had no choice but to rule the way he did. No society in human history has ever given legal recognition to the unborn that the born have.
Well gee, do you think that is exactly what I meant when I said 'birth is a condition of personhood within the Constitution by very clear implications? Did I ever claim the term 'personhood' could be found in the Constitution. Oh nevermind, I forgot your affinity for strawmen.
Except you haven't and can't overcome the context;
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,"
How can an unborn be deprived of liberty or property? An unborn can't exercise liberties such as free speech, nor can an unborn own property. It is entirely foolish to assume this passage addresses the unborn, when the unborn can't participate in anything outlined therein, other than the right to life.
And even if you overcome that, you can't overcome the other 47 instance where the words 'person' or 'persons' appear which are obviously discussing born persons. The entirety of the Constitution discusses born persons and the rights they might enjoy such as liberties and property rights. Yet, you would have us ignore this context in 47 instances, while pretending the 48th instance in the 14th Amendment totally throws out ALL of the other context, leaving this one 'right to life' sticking out as a sore thumb as somehow being applicable to the unborn. Additionally, we must deny the 14th Amendment itself was intended from the beginning to address born persons, those recently freed slaves. And also, given there were no techniques to keep the unborn alive outside of the womb prior to birth at the time this amendment was written, we must believe the authors were addressing situations technologically impossible at the time.
That's a moutainous illogical leap you ask us to jump over if I have ever seen one.
Sure, as long as we deny the context of the 14th Amendment, as long as we deny the context of the words 'person' and 'persons' as found throughout the Constitution, as long as we pretend the intent of the 14th Amendment was to address the unborn and as long as we pretend the technology to keep the unborn alive outside the womb prior to birth, existed at the times both the Constitution and the 14th Amendments were penned.
The context of the usage is highly relevant. Because Blackmun could find no usage where the word 'person' was applied to the unborn within the Constitution, when Roe was decided, is exactly why he had to look backward in history to English common law and laws before that. The context of the usage is so relevant that context is why the unborn aren't constitutional persons to this day.
No one is arguing intent to exclude the unborn exists within the Constitution. To argue such would be ludicrous. It is foolish to suggest the authors of the Constitution would address a situation in law that was technologically impossible for them to face at the time the law was written. If they had no way to keep the unborn alive outside of a uterus prior to birth, why in the world would they be writing law about them? Plain and simple, they wouldn't.
Nothing in the amendment, nor in the entire Constitution applies to the unborn. That's why abortion is legal. You are arguing from shear stupidity and denial of all facts and context at this point.
Hardly, here's a few examples of context;
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
No Person shall be a Representative
by adding to the whole Number of free Persons
three fifths of all other Persons
No Person shall be a Senator
And no Person shall be convicted
and no Person holding any Office
and the Names of the Persons voting for
The Migration or Importation of such Persons
not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
And no Person holding any Office
or Person holding an Office
and vote by Ballot for two Persons
List of all the Persons voted for
The Person having the greatest Number
and if no Person have a majority
the Person having the greatest number of votes
No Person except a natural born citizen
And you also have the Bill of Rights, not a one of which can possibly be construed to apply to the unborn.
Lovely strawman! Any born human is a person in my book. However, I don't know if newborns were considered persons or not at the time the Constitution was written. Weren't children and wives still considered to be chattel then?
That's a lovely strawmen but it's your argument not mine. My argument is the Constitution does not address the unborn, since it is phsyically impossible for the unborn to exercise a single right outlined in the Constitution. Newborns have the ability to exercise at least some of those rights, such a speech or religion, which is physically impossible for the unborn.
SCOTUS didn't decide in favor of anyone. They made the only decision they could. There was no usage of the words 'person' or 'perons' that could possibly apply to the unborn. So they looked back into English common law. They found no precedent there were the unborn were considered to be persons. So they looked back in history before that. They still found no law which recognized the unborn as persons. So they ruled the only way they possibly could. If the precedent didn't exist, and we know for a fact it didn't, they had to rule the way they did.
Immaterial and irrelevant. None here are arguing for abortion on demand up to the ninth month.
Forgive me, I forgot how much you pro-lifers do so enjoy the semantic games. SCOTUS ruled the unborn aren't legal persons. You might also say SCOTUS ruled they aren't constitutional persons. Take your pick.
Oh lovely. Another strawman. Let me know if you ever care to argue something I said, rather than something you claim I meant. And you call me dumb?
Sure. Victory always goes to he who creates the most strawmen, right?
Yet, the law did determine the unborn are not constitutional persons. Imagine that.
Labeling the unborn 'persons' doesn't make them such, nor does it cause our society to universally agree they are.
Not a word of which convinces me to accept your subjective proposition that the unborn are persons.
I thought you were intelligent enough to view the context of the 48 times the words 'person' or 'persons' appear and discover what is being addressed from that alone. I apologize for making such an erroneous assumption.
Sure, that's exactly why the unborn aren't constitutional persons. It's merely because in every case where the word 'person' or 'persons' appears within the Constitution, it MUST be addressing the unborn, who have a right to a fair trial, rights to speech, religion, etc. How silly of me not to catch that.
Except they are both born, which means they are both constitutional persons.
Except they are both born, which means they are bothconstitutional persons.
Not at all. I am suggesting we can easily kill those who lack the sentience of a fly, no different than we kill a fly. And we can do it completely guilt free if we so choose, because in the end, what is killed, has LESS sentience than a fly.
Still avoiding the point I see. I don't blame you. If you can't address it successfully, you do well to evade it.
Child molesters cause harm and suffering. Abortion doesn't.
You picked out another clinic to bomb?
Abortion is the business of the one who needs to abort, which involves neither you, nor I.
Oh look! She aborted and killed something that doesn't even have the sentience of a fly! I am so offended! Can you bring me the smelling salts?
I get suspicious anytime one wishes to force a choice on another, when the one wishing to force that choice doesn't have to face the consequences of the forced choice, or pay for it, or deal with the consequences, etc.
I already know your business. She aborted your child and there wasn't a damn thing you could do about it. Since you have no way to get back at her, you will instead take your anger out on all women, by attempting to make ALL women slaves of simple biological processes easily manipulated in a petri dish. That's the real issue with you. You couldn't control of stop her, so you get your revenge by using and and all women as a substitute for her.
And you wish to accomplish all of this via a facade of morality. What a pity you couldn't look in the mirror and ask yourself what errors you made in your choice of partner, but who the hell cares about personal responsibility in this day and age? Besides, it so much easier to take your anger out on all women, or at least try to, than ask yourself what you did that brought that situation about, isn't it?
1. Our law isn't based on objective reality. The majority of our law is quite arbitrary.
2. It is not objective reality that the unborn are persons. The idea that unborn are persons is opinion, nothing more.
Yet, until they are born, they aren't constitutional persons, no matter what you or I either one say.
Translation;Denial
Who is discussing late term abortion, outside of cases of rape or medical necessity?
You are being intentionally obtuse, as well as extremely disingenuous. You know as well as I do, the authors of the Constitution did not write laws based on situations impossible for them to face, such as keeping an unborn alive outside of a womb prior to birth. I am glad to see you argue this though and I hope others of your ilk argue the same, especially in courts.
And I have already pointed out how many illogical hoops one must jump through in order for you viewpoint to stand. All you do in making such a claim is place yourself in a hole which you can't possibly argue yourself out of.
That's your claim, not mine. You are the fool claiming the authors of these documents would write law intending to address situations they couldn't face due to lack of technical capability.
Well women existed at the time these documents were written. Unborns, living outside of a uterus, prior to birth, did not exist at the time these documents were written, which is why judges don't presume the documents address the unborn at all.
Laws regarding parental responsibility concern themselves with children already born, not some parasite feeding off the body of a host.
Why acknowledge rights for entities which lack the sentience that even a fly has? To suggest we should grant them rights is ludicrous.
A woman can kill a zygote, embryo or fetus all the way up to the point of viability for any reason she chooses. There's nothing wrong with it at all and no reason to feel guilty about it, no more than if one killed a fly with a fly swatter.
It IS an injustice to women to ban abortion. You don't have the right to force me to spend $150,000 on a house, no more than you have the right to force a woman to spend $150,000 to raise a child. You can't make that decision for others in a free society. And there is no reason why you should make that decision, since you are not the one who must deal with the consequences of it.
Oh yeah! Your logic on the Constitution was absolutely brilliant. Pity the motivation behind it is the fact your pissed some woman aborted your kid and there's not a damn thing you can do about it but try to oppress every other woman in the country and make them pay, in order to exact your revenge.

reply from: gotfetus

When we get the Noth American Union, it won't matter what the court says. Tribunal of the western hemisphere will make abortion legal from the tip of south america to the northern borders of Canada. And Bush is the one who is handing it over without a shot by treaty. Read the FTAA sometimes. It is really quite amussing watching the pro-lifers squawl about the courts, when it won't make a bit of difference real soon.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yuck, North American Union. Just wait until Bush gets out of office, there goes that horrible idea.

reply from: gotfetus

To late. A US president already signed the treaty. It is now law.

reply from: AshMarie88

To late. A US president already signed the treaty. It is now law.
It's not a law. Yes Bush thought about it, but it's not a law.
We only have a little over a year til he's no longer dictator (I mean president), I'm sure it would take longer for a stupid law like a NAU to be passed.
Let's just say Ron Paul becomes president... there'll be no more thinking about a NAU.

reply from: gotfetus

To late. A US president already signed the treaty. It is now law.
It's not a law. Yes Bush thought about it, but it's not a law.
We only have a little over a year til he's no longer dictator (I mean president), I'm sure it would take longer for a stupid law like a NAU to be passed.
Let's just say Ron Paul becomes president... there'll be no more thinking about a NAU.
You are looking in the wrong place dear heart. Try a web search on FTAA. Bushy boy already signed it. NAU is just to hit any points the FTAA missed. You are going to have to get use to the fact that we will have a pro-abortion government of the western hemisphere. The peices are already in place. The treaties have already been signed. American imperialism is coming to an end. You pour little dears are just too stupid to realize it yet. It is fun to watch you squirm though.

reply from: AshMarie88

Are you pro-Constitution? If you are, you'd be against this whole NAU idea.

reply from: gotfetus

Humanity can not progress under this out dated document. We need, and will have, a world government that is based on the principals of humanism.

reply from: AshMarie88

Oh, please. *rolls eyes*

reply from: gotfetus

Roll your eyes all you wish. I can understand how you must feel. When the truth hits, and you find yourself on the loosing side.

reply from: AshMarie88

You're one hilarious pro-abort!

reply from: Sigma

Non sequitur. The explicit requirement is personhood, not life. Your "therefore" does not follow.

reply from: gotfetus

The problem with the 14th amendment is that it gives congress the power to make law from it. The language in roe left the door open for congress to atribute personhood to the fetus. Fortunantly, that hasn't happened or roe would have colapsed. That door can be permanently shut when the "Freedom Of Choice Act" is passed. The progressives in congress are working on that as we speak. The 14th has left the door open for both sides. It depends on who gets there first. Choicers are more focused, and do not have to over come the premadona personalities of the Pro-life movement. This is obvious as pro-life leaders have ignored the "life at conception act" and opted to put a decade and a half, and millions into the farce of Partial birth ban. The real funny thing is, that it only regulated not banned the procedure. It is important for all pro-choicers to get behind the Freedom OF Choice Act, so the back door of the 14th amendment is shut, and the voice of a more pro-lifer court is muted. We will accomplish all these things when Hilary is elected. We will have the NAU, and there will never be a chance for a pro-life take over of government again.

reply from: fetalisa

And the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the unborn, for numerous reasons. That's why abortion is legal.

reply from: gotfetus

And the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the unborn, for numerous reasons. That's why abortion is legal.
Please! Your ignorance does not help the cause of choice. The fact is that the Roe discission did indeed leave the door open for congress to use the 14th amendment to atribute personhood to the fetus. That is why all the champoins of Choice should be involved in getting the freedom of choice act passed. We must beat the PLers to the back door of the 14th and shut it. Then it wouldn't matter how anti roe the court became. It would be constitutional law and untouchable by the court.

reply from: fetalisa

You might wish to try this scam on someone else.
Looks like I am not as ignorant as you first thought.

reply from: fetalisa

Claiming you are right and Blackmun is wrong proves nothing.
The only thing embarrassing here is your denial of the already outlined numerous reasons. You can claim you are right and Blackmun is wrong all day long, but at the end of the day, none in our society are entitled to live under your opinions. We are obligated to live under the law, including Blackmun's decision, and we know exactly why Blackmun had no choice but to reach the decision that he did.
Obviously, you have no interest whatsoever in debate, but are merely interested in strawmen and semantic games. That's your right. I am here to debate however and have no obligation whatsoever to play your childish games.
It is. You have thoroughly proven you have no interest in debate.

reply from: gotfetus

You might wish to try this scam on someone else.
Looks like I am not as ignorant as you first thought.
Please. I am merely trying to help you. You need to go back and read Roe. The court said that if the congress established personhood to the fetus, then the complantants in roe had no case. It is a wide open back door for congress to over throw the courts descission. The 14th amendment [once again, get a copy of the document and read it] gives congress the power to make law on this issue. If we do not beat the PLers to this open back door, then yes, congress could pass the "Life At Conception Act" Roe is over turned, and the court could not rule one way or the other on it. If we beat them there with the freedom of choice act, then the door is shut for good, and the pro-life justices Bush stacked the court with are trumped. That is the most important race right now. But we can not win as long as you choose to remain ignorant. What you have been saying is simply incorrect. You have obviuosly not read the 2 documents being discussed. Leave willing ignorance to the PLers. A pro-choicer should know better.

reply from: AshMarie88

Pro-lifers have the right to voice their opinions all they want, even if you disagree with them. No law could ban freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is protected under the first amendment in the Constitution.

reply from: gotfetus

No one is argueing that point little one. We are discussing the 14th amendment, not the first. You can say abortion is murder all day long. That is your 1st amendment right. But someone freely speaking does not make what they say law. Congress makes law, and the courts use it to rule.

reply from: AshMarie88

Well thank God we have no LIBERAL Congress.
P.S. Abort Hitlery; presidents should be planned and wanted!
(Yes I know, I'm going to hell.)

reply from: gotfetus

Cute! But we will have the last laugh in 08. And all your little pro-life dreams will be dashed in a very short time.

reply from: 4given

Little pro-life dreams? Cletus, you amuse me! Regardless of the election, I remain firm in my convictions, as do any other pro-lifers here. We stand for the truth- and any opportunity to share the truth with others. What do you stand for?

reply from: AshMarie88

This country is not ready for a woman president, so don't get your hopes up.

reply from: gotfetus

Ready or not, here she comes!!!

reply from: fetalisa

You are a clown. You think debating involves attributing claims to others that they never made, but that you yourself made up. You can not win a debate with another when all you are doing is debating yourself, not what the other person actually stated.

reply from: fetalisa

You are a fraudulent liar.
You would do well to do that yourself.
"A. 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. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
You are a lying fraud.
You have already made it clear that you deny contextual analysis. You are fooling no one and it is obvious to all that you are not what you claim to be.

reply from: fetalisa

You sure can. And I am free to point out abortion is not murder after you claim that it is as if it were a truth. It obviously is a lie, since no one goes to jail for having an abortion.
And very soon you prolifers will have to answer to the entire nation;
If abortion is banned, what criminal charge do we place on woman who have illegal abortions. If you don't answer 'murder,' then our entire society will know that you never did believe abortion was murder and were lying when you said so.
So get ready to tell all of American that if abortion is banned, the only possible criminal charge we can place on women who have abortions is murder, since you have been claiming for 34 years that this is what abortion is.
If you claim you won't jail the mothers, but only doctors, then we will know you don't believe abortion is murder.

reply from: AshMarie88

You sure can. And I am free to point out abortion is not murder after you claim that it is as if it were a truth. It obviously is a lie, since no one goes to jail for having an abortion.
Just like no one went to jail for owning and killing slaves!!!

reply from: Sigma

Yes, that is the question, as you admit. The right in question would have "possible prenatal application" were the conceptus to qualify as a "person" within the meaning of the Constitution. Whether or not the conceptus is biologically alive is somewhat beside the point in this argument. Your "therefore" does not follow. Non sequitur.
I am merely informing you of one of your errors. Whether you accept it is not really my concern.

reply from: Sigma

That's the point :-\
The right in question does not logically apply to any living entity, born or unborn. By definition it only applies to Constitutional persons. Whether the conceptus is alive is somewhat beside the point. Certainly if it were not it would merely be a logic exercise, but it is still beside the point.
Your "therefore" does not follow. Non sequitur.

reply from: Sigma

Your conclusion did not follow from your premise, so you did not show it could apply. It is a non sequitur fallacy :-\
Whether or not the conceptus is alive does not, itself, determine that such a right applies. It is beside the point. It is begging the question if I assume my conclusion is true in my premise. An argument of definition, as in this case, is circular but is not begging the question.

reply from: Sigma

Fair enough. However, pointing out that the conceptus is alive does not show that the right in question (or any right, for that matter) applies to it. It does not follow. Non sequitur.
This does not follow from the premise that the conceptus is alive, however. Life is not an explicit requirement, while 'personhood' is a requirment. Whether the conceptus is biologically alive is beside the point. Important, perhaps, but beside the point.
I'm afraid if you cannot see it yet, you never will :-\

reply from: Sigma

And if you marry your Aunt you could be your own Uncle. You have a big if that you do not address and which your conclusion hinges upon. The argument does not hinge on whether the conceptus is alive, but on whether the conceptus is Constitutionally a 'person'.
Your conclusion does not follow from whether the conceptus is alive. It is beside the point. Non sequitur.
A live conceptus is in the same boat re: this issue since it is not considered a Constitutional 'person' anyway. Whether or not it is biologically alive is beside the point.

reply from: Sigma

I thought your point was whether or not it could apply, since you said: But it does show that it could logically apply, which was my point.
Or was it this: The original argument was that "person" was not intended to include unborn persons
Or how about this: the argument was that it does not apply because it could not possibly apply
You seem a bit confused yourself on exactly what the argument is about. The bottom line is this: Whether the conceptus (or any other entity) is alive does not, itself, allow the possiblity of a 'right to life' by any stretch of imagination. It must satisfy other criteria. Your conclusion that the right can possibly apply does not follow for the simple reason that you ignore other requirements.

reply from: Sigma

I thought your point was whether or not it could apply, since you said: But it does show that it could logically apply, which was my point.
Or was it this: The original argument was that "person" was not intended to include unborn persons
Or how about this: the argument was that it does not apply because it could not possibly apply
You seem a bit confused yourself on exactly what the argument is about. The bottom line is this: Whether the conceptus (or any other entity) is alive does not, itself, allow the possiblity of a 'right to life' by any stretch of imagination. It must satisfy other criteria. Your conclusion that the right can possibly apply does not follow for the simple reason that you ignore other requirements.

reply from: gotfetus

I thought your point was whether or not it could apply, since you said: But it does show that it could logically apply, which was my point.
Or was it this: The original argument was that "person" was not intended to include unborn persons
Or how about this: the argument was that it does not apply because it could not possibly apply
You seem a bit confused yourself on exactly what the argument is about. The bottom line is this: Whether the conceptus (or any other entity) is alive does not, itself, allow the possiblity of a 'right to life' by any stretch of imagination. It must satisfy other criteria. Your conclusion that the right can possibly apply does not follow for the simple reason that you ignore other requirements.
While you are doing these mental , and semantical jumping jacks, the truth is that if a pro-life congress passes, and a pro-life president signs, a life at conception act, then roe goes away. The congress does have an open back door to atribute personhood to the speck. And the court could do nothing about it. This fact is recognized in roe itself. That is why every champion of choice needs to get behind FOCA to close the door of the 14th, and over throw all this BS pro-life law that has been passed both state and federal. We have a chance to shut the door in the PLers face. We must vote in a choice congress, and a choice president. The Plers threw away 6 years of control behind PBA band. Hunter was ignored [thank goodness] when he introduced the life at conception act. But we can not continue to dodge the bullit. We must get FOCA passed until we get NAU. We are so close to shutting the PLers out for good. We just need to remain focussed and get the job done.

reply from: AshMarie88

Why the hell are you so hellbent on this whole "NAU" and giving only pro-aborts voices?

reply from: gotfetus

The same reason you are so "heaven bent" in taking viable choices away with out giving answeres to the social problems mankind faces. We must face the fact that we live in a global world. We can not ignore how interdependant we are. The must be world governance to over come wars , welfare, and some of the other issue you have claimed to be concerned about. World government is a must, not an option. NAU is a major step in that direction. I am all for PLers having a voice, I just don't see that they have much to say.

reply from: Sigma

You presented each of those statements as what the argument was really about. The misunderstanding is yours, if those statements represent a misunderstanding of the argument.
In any case:
Your argument, based on whether the conceptus is alive, does not defeat the supporting argument you pointed out. The rights in question do not apply because [something] is alive. While that may be implicit, the explicit requirement would be the determining factor in this argument. Without the fulfillment of that requirement the right could not possibly apply.
Your 'therefore' does not follow. Non sequitur.

reply from: Sigma

The only important requirement in this context is that the conceptus is, in the Constitutional sense, a person. You ignored (or assumed) this requirement while the right in question cannot apply without that requirement. Your "therefore" cannot follow without this requirement. Non sequitur.
If you wish. I am not, however, arguing whether the conceptus is or is not a person.

reply from: Sigma

It does not. My contention is that your point does not follow from "the conceptus is alive" alone. My contention is that the rights in question do not flow from "the conceptus is alive" alone. My contention is that it personhood is the relevant requirement.

reply from: Sigma

Now you're just quibbling.

reply from: Sigma

The conceptus does not meet this qualification according to the people charged with interpreting these legal matters. While this is so the rights in question cannot possibly apply. While you believe them mistaken this fact is irrefutable.

reply from: Sigma

My understanding is that the examination of the Fourteenth Amendment revealed that both the phrase's intention and practical application seems to be only post-natal. Therefore, it was concluded, the phrase does not include the conceptus.

reply from: Sigma

The "practical application" refers to what the text has applied to in the past, and the intent, while not required in the interpretation, can be reasoned from why the Amendment was adopted in the first place.
If virtually nothing indicates that personhood applies pre-natally in Constitutional law, it is valid to say that it does not apply.

reply from: tjlsmom

The "practical application" refers to what the text has applied to in the past, and the intent, while not required in the interpretation, can be reasoned from why the Amendment was adopted in the first place.
If virtually nothing indicates that personhood applies pre-natally in Constitutional law, it is valid to say that it does not apply.
Wrong. Sigma. Show me one sentence or phrase in the 14th Amendment that indicates personhood applies only postnatally..
There aren't any. Post all you want, but I have my handy-dandy copy of the Constitution right here. It says absolutely nothing about "prenatal" or "postnatal". Since science proves beyond a doubt that human life begins at conception, there is no reason whatsoever to delegate the 14th Amendment rights only to postnatal human beings.

reply from: Sigma

This was not the reasoning. From what I understand, the reasoning was that there was little or no evidence to support the claim that it has ever or was ever intended to apply pre-natally.
Well, yes, the Constitution does mention "birth" which would indicate a separation of pre- and post-natal humans. While the section specifically in dispute does not specify a difference it is untrue that the Constitution in general does not. Hm... too many negatives?
I believe this was part of the reasoning. Since the rest of the Constitution explicitly could only apply post-natally it is reasonable to apply that standard to the section in dispute.

reply from: Sigma

While the section specifically in dispute does not specify a difference it is untrue that the Constitution in general does not
..............................

reply from: Sigma

While the section specifically in dispute does not specify a difference it is untrue that the Constitution in general does not

reply from: Sigma

tjlsmom posted: Post all you want, but I have my handy-dandy copy of the Constitution right here. It says absolutely nothing about "prenatal" or "postnatal".
Sigma answered: Well, yes, the Constitution does mention "birth" which would indicate a separation of pre- and post-natal humans. While the section specifically in dispute does not specify a difference it is untrue that the Constitution in general does not.

reply from: Sigma

...................
The citizenship requirement is a general theme of the Constitution.

reply from: Sigma

While the section specifically in dispute does not specify a difference it is untrue that the Constitution in general does not.
I did not make any argument in that post. I informed tjlsmom of the situation.

reply from: prolifenanny

That is exactly what I said one day to my pro-abortion supporter cousin and she was lost for words.

reply from: prolifebychoice

I actually just mentioned this in another thread. I find it funny how the por-abortion crown flip flops so bad with this. They don't want to establish "personhood" to the unborn but they don't want to look like absolute morons either.

reply from: prolifebychoice

I haven't had a chance to read every post but I feel the need to comment on an item or two. Sorry if I repeat something anyone else has already mentioned. Fetalisa, if she is still on, has a tag line that reads "Slaves don't have choices". Actually they had more choices then the unborn. They could attempt to run away. On top of that I have always found it facinating that the same arguements used to promote and keep slavery legal are the same arguments used by the pro-abortion movement.
They aren't really human
They're not "persons"
They're just property or a belonging (or a piece of tissue)
Slave owners rights are more important
What about the poor single mother slave owner, if they were set free she wouldn't have anyone to do the field work
I also am always surprised by how many people have the false impression that Roe V Wade was a constitutional decision that "legalized" abortion. The Roe V Wade desicion did not legalize abortion, it tooks away the states right to choose. Abortion was already legal in most states and if it were repeeled today 90% of US women would have access. Unless I accidentally read the wrong documant I'm pretty sure the federal government was not supposed to fiddle with states rights.
Doe V Bolton, decided on the same day as Roe V Wade, judged that abortion should be allowed no matter the reason at any time.
You know, I also never hear anyone mention how the women in those 2 cases never wanted an abortion to begin with. The attorny's actively searched for women with a sob story despertate enough to sign documents for the promise of help. How do I know this? From the preverbial horses mouth.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics