Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Abortion Protected Under the Amendment?

Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 4:07:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've also went back and forth on weather the 14th Amendment supports abortion.

The 14th Amendment (section 1) reads;

"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."

Now, does depriving a person of life mean:

A) Denying a women the right to abort her baby
or
B) You are depriving that child of what life it *could* have if you don't abort it.

Opinions?
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
Lee308
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 4:17:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The 14th admendent was put there for one reason, to give all kids born to slaves after the civil war citizenship, that is all.
It needs to be removed. As for your right to kill your baby, I'm all for it.
It will cost me less in tax dollars.
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 4:20:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 4:17:16 PM, Lee308 wrote:
The 14th admendent was put there for one reason, to give all kids born to slaves after the civil war citizenship, that is all.
It needs to be removed. As for your right to kill your baby, I'm all for it.
It will cost me less in tax dollars.

Lol, okay.

But do you agree that the 14th amendment is relevant to abortion today?
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
Lee308
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 4:23:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Nope, it has nothing to do with abortion.
However, I think its the parents right to kill their kid up to the age of 16 and call a do over.
Some kids are to stupid to live, Micheal Brown being one of them.
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 4:24:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 4:23:00 PM, Lee308 wrote:
Nope, it has nothing to do with abortion.
However, I think its the parents right to kill their kid up to the age of 16 and call a do over.
Some kids are to stupid to live, Micheal Brown being one of them.

Okay then...
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
Oreo222
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 1:38:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 4:07:00 PM, Lee001 wrote:
I've also went back and forth on weather the 14th Amendment supports abortion.

The 14th Amendment (section 1) reads;

"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."

Now, does depriving a person of life mean:

A) Denying a women the right to abort her baby
or
B) You are depriving that child of what life it *could* have if you don't abort it.

Opinions?

It comes down to who's life you are willing to impair: the mother's or the child's.
Raising a child is quite the task and requires lots of time and money, so putting the child before the mom, who has hopes and dreams, would impair her figurative life. Whereas preventing a child from being born greatly impairs their literal life.
I personally think that the mother should come before the fetus, but once the child is born, the child takes priority over the mother.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 1:53:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 4:07:00 PM, Lee001 wrote:
I've also went back and forth on weather the 14th Amendment supports abortion.

The 14th Amendment (section 1) reads;

"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."

Now, does depriving a person of life mean:

A) Denying a women the right to abort her baby
or
B) You are depriving that child of what life it *could* have if you don't abort it.

Opinions?

I had a deb8 over this with some guy recently. Apparently, from Roe v. Wade, majority opinion cited that in all instances in which the word "Person" was used in the Constitution, it was used to imply that the person has to be born. The word was present in Art. I, 9, cl. 8. In the 14th Amendment, we are told that all persons born are citizens of the US, hence having Constitutional protection. Apart from this, there are many other cases which state that the right to a women's bodily privacy overrules that of the fetus.

Moreover, I believe that the potential life argument is bad, as it protects the right for the fetus to have a miserable and disgusting life (like Seymor Skinner in the Simpsons or Chris Griffins from Family Guy).
praise the lord Chin Chin
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 3:43:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 4:07:00 PM, Lee001 wrote:
I've also went back and forth on weather the 14th Amendment supports abortion.

The 14th Amendment (section 1) reads;

"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."

Now, does depriving a person of life mean:

A) Denying a women the right to abort her baby
or
B) You are depriving that child of what life it *could* have if you don't abort it.

Opinions?

Other portions of the Constitution aside, that bolded section states a right of individuals to not be deprived of the right to life by the Government. Government does not perform abortions in the United States, and while it banning abortion might deprive women of the pursuit of happiness, it does not generally deprive them of the right of life.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 4:43:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 4:07:00 PM, Lee001 wrote:
I've also went back and forth on weather the 14th Amendment supports abortion.

The 14th Amendment (section 1) reads;

"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."

Now, does depriving a person of life mean:

A) Denying a women the right to abort her baby
or
B) You are depriving that child of what life it *could* have if you don't abort it.

Opinions?

First, the phrase is "nor shall any state deprive", this is not applicable to an individual.
Second, I believe the issue of abortion is more of a matter of privacy (medical procedures), which is more of a 4th amendment issue, than 14th.
Third, the 14th amendment applies to those that are born. Unborn children, are, by definition, not born, ergo, it does not apply.
Lastly, if the state is going to force a pregnancy, it would very much be "abridg[ing] the privileges or immunities" of said woman.

tl;dr
The 14th amendment does not protect abortion, nor prohibit it.
My work here is, finally, done.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 10:33:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Constitution's definition of "person," as established in Roe v. Wade, is postnatal.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
To not be deprived of life is simply to not be killed. Since abortion kills a foetus, it follows that it is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. It's quite simple.

At 8/30/2015 10:33:17 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Constitution's definition of "person," as established in Roe v. Wade, is postnatal.

The SCOTUS can be, and has been before, very misguided. Why not this time? It seems that Roe v. Wade is misguided, because birth doesn't in any way change the ontology of a human being.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 10:47:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:
To not be deprived of life is simply to not be killed. Since abortion kills a foetus, it follows that it is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. It's quite simple.

At 8/30/2015 10:33:17 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Constitution's definition of "person," as established in Roe v. Wade, is postnatal.

The SCOTUS can be, and has been before, very misguided. Why not this time? It seems that Roe v. Wade is misguided, because birth doesn't in any way change the ontology of a human being.

prove it.
praise the lord Chin Chin
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 10:49:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:
To not be deprived of life is simply to not be killed. Since abortion kills a foetus, it follows that it is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. It's quite simple.

At 8/30/2015 10:33:17 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Constitution's definition of "person," as established in Roe v. Wade, is postnatal.

The SCOTUS can be, and has been before, very misguided. Why not this time? It seems that Roe v. Wade is misguided, because birth doesn't in any way change the ontology of a human being.

btw the Constitution doesn't recognise ontology as a valid judicial strategy.
praise the lord Chin Chin
greatkitteh
Posts: 394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 10:54:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Anyrhing giving the lesser Gender, The history Irrelevant , the weaker, the Dumber Gender more power is bad, And Giving the Unworthy A Right to Kill the baby is Intolerable.

The writers of the consitution were Excessively Anti-Women's rights, Thus Abortion is unconsititutional.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 10:56:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:

1. The fetus feels no pain till the 20th week of pregnancy [http://www.mccl.org...], and that's per *Conservative* estimates -- the scientific agreement generally lies around 24 weeks [http://www.factcheck.org...]. In that case, there's no real difference between killing a fetus prior to 20 weeks and killing a sponge.

2. This would entail multiple, subjective interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the body charged with interpreting the Constitution -- if any other body claims its interpretation is "better," then interpretation of the Constitution becomes subjective, meaning no law is final and only anarchy can prevail. We can only presume the Supreme Court's supremacy in interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Jackson once remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible . . . because we are final." As the Supreme Court stated in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court gets to decide "what the law is."
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 11:14:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 10:56:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:

1. The fetus feels no pain till the 20th week of pregnancy [http://www.mccl.org...], and that's per *Conservative* estimates -- the scientific agreement generally lies around 24 weeks [http://www.factcheck.org...]. In that case, there's no real difference between killing a fetus prior to 20 weeks and killing a sponge.

Comatose people cannot feel pain, so are they equivalent to sponges as well?


2. This would entail multiple, subjective interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the body charged with interpreting the Constitution -- if any other body claims its interpretation is "better," then interpretation of the Constitution becomes subjective, meaning no law is final and only anarchy can prevail. We can only presume the Supreme Court's supremacy in interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Jackson once remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible . . . because we are final." As the Supreme Court stated in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court gets to decide "what the law is."

What about Plessy vs Ferguson? Did the SCOTUS ruling mean that segregation was constitutional? In which case, if it was constitutional then why is segregation not constitutional now?

At 8/30/2015 10:47:57 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:
To not be deprived of life is simply to not be killed. Since abortion kills a foetus, it follows that it is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. It's quite simple.

At 8/30/2015 10:33:17 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Constitution's definition of "person," as established in Roe v. Wade, is postnatal.

The SCOTUS can be, and has been before, very misguided. Why not this time? It seems that Roe v. Wade is misguided, because birth doesn't in any way change the ontology of a human being.

prove it.

Embryology.

A human being 10 minutes prior to birth is not ontologically different from a human being 10 minutes after birth. Birth is just a change in location.

At 8/30/2015 10:49:04 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:
To not be deprived of life is simply to not be killed. Since abortion kills a foetus, it follows that it is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. It's quite simple.

At 8/30/2015 10:33:17 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Constitution's definition of "person," as established in Roe v. Wade, is postnatal.

The SCOTUS can be, and has been before, very misguided. Why not this time? It seems that Roe v. Wade is misguided, because birth doesn't in any way change the ontology of a human being.

btw the Constitution doesn't recognise ontology as a valid judicial strategy.

On what other basis can we justifiably ascribe personhood if not ontology? Surely a being is a person due to what type of being it is? Since birth doesn't change what type of being a foetus is, it is misguided to consider birth as the criteria to personhood.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 12:23:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 11:14:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:56:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:

1. The fetus feels no pain till the 20th week of pregnancy [http://www.mccl.org...], and that's per *Conservative* estimates -- the scientific agreement generally lies around 24 weeks [http://www.factcheck.org...]. In that case, there's no real difference between killing a fetus prior to 20 weeks and killing a sponge.

Comatose people cannot feel pain, so are they equivalent to sponges as well?


2. This would entail multiple, subjective interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the body charged with interpreting the Constitution -- if any other body claims its interpretation is "better," then interpretation of the Constitution becomes subjective, meaning no law is final and only anarchy can prevail. We can only presume the Supreme Court's supremacy in interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Jackson once remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible . . . because we are final." As the Supreme Court stated in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court gets to decide "what the law is."

What about Plessy vs Ferguson? Did the SCOTUS ruling mean that segregation was constitutional? In which case, if it was constitutional then why is segregation not constitutional now?

You can argue forever about why the SCOTUS is wrong during Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood v. Cassey. But can you provide any judicial evidence, apart from your legal dictionaries, to prove that unwanted fetuses have the right to life?




At 8/30/2015 10:47:57 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:
To not be deprived of life is simply to not be killed. Since abortion kills a foetus, it follows that it is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. It's quite simple.

At 8/30/2015 10:33:17 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Constitution's definition of "person," as established in Roe v. Wade, is postnatal.

The SCOTUS can be, and has been before, very misguided. Why not this time? It seems that Roe v. Wade is misguided, because birth doesn't in any way change the ontology of a human being.

prove it.

Embryology.

A human being 10 minutes prior to birth is not ontologically different from a human being 10 minutes after birth. Birth is just a change in location.

Welp, firstly, embryology would suggest that a fetus has the same moral equivalence and physiology is an unconscious fish (http://www.bbc.com...). Moreover, embryology only proves that "life" begins at conception, but not "personhood." Apart from this, a human being born after 10 minutes is indeed not different from a fetus 10 minutes before birth. And yes, when a fetus is "viable" i.e. able to survive without the hosting women, then yes, the "fetus" cannot be justifiably killed. But a fetus whose moral equivalence is the same as an unconscious fish cannot be justifiably protected under the 14th Amendment, which, furthermore, states that "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."


At 8/30/2015 10:49:04 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:
To not be deprived of life is simply to not be killed. Since abortion kills a foetus, it follows that it is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. It's quite simple.

At 8/30/2015 10:33:17 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Constitution's definition of "person," as established in Roe v. Wade, is postnatal.

The SCOTUS can be, and has been before, very misguided. Why not this time? It seems that Roe v. Wade is misguided, because birth doesn't in any way change the ontology of a human being.

btw the Constitution doesn't recognise ontology as a valid judicial strategy.

On what other basis can we justifiably ascribe personhood if not ontology? Surely a being is a person due to what type of being it is? Since birth doesn't change what type of being a foetus is, it is misguided to consider birth as the criteria to personhood.

When the SCOTUS defines "personhood," they define it accordingly to the Constitution, not to ontology. They define it accordingly to laws and statutes, not to the speculative a priori theories created in Athens, or by Hegel. Apart from this, ontology is one of those things which always has a different "side" to the story: for example, you could say x is a person, and put millions of a priori reasons for it. But simply because it is a priori and synthetic, means that the same could be asserted, with equal proof, of the opposite of it. This puts Constitutional interpretation on shaky grounds: what is the ontology of the United States, or corporations etc.? SCOTUS cannot deal with speculative laws, as it has the duty to interpret the Constitution practically and objectively.
praise the lord Chin Chin
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 12:36:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 12:23:26 PM, 18Karl wrote:
At 8/30/2015 11:14:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:56:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:

1. The fetus feels no pain till the 20th week of pregnancy [http://www.mccl.org...], and that's per *Conservative* estimates -- the scientific agreement generally lies around 24 weeks [http://www.factcheck.org...]. In that case, there's no real difference between killing a fetus prior to 20 weeks and killing a sponge.

Comatose people cannot feel pain, so are they equivalent to sponges as well?


2. This would entail multiple, subjective interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the body charged with interpreting the Constitution -- if any other body claims its interpretation is "better," then interpretation of the Constitution becomes subjective, meaning no law is final and only anarchy can prevail. We can only presume the Supreme Court's supremacy in interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Jackson once remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible . . . because we are final." As the Supreme Court stated in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court gets to decide "what the law is."

What about Plessy vs Ferguson? Did the SCOTUS ruling mean that segregation was constitutional? In which case, if it was constitutional then why is segregation not constitutional now?

You can argue forever about why the SCOTUS is wrong during Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood v. Cassey. But can you provide any judicial evidence, apart from your legal dictionaries, to prove that unwanted fetuses have the right to life?

Foetal homicide laws.





At 8/30/2015 10:47:57 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:
To not be deprived of life is simply to not be killed. Since abortion kills a foetus, it follows that it is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. It's quite simple.

At 8/30/2015 10:33:17 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Constitution's definition of "person," as established in Roe v. Wade, is postnatal.

The SCOTUS can be, and has been before, very misguided. Why not this time? It seems that Roe v. Wade is misguided, because birth doesn't in any way change the ontology of a human being.

prove it.

Embryology.

A human being 10 minutes prior to birth is not ontologically different from a human being 10 minutes after birth. Birth is just a change in location.

Welp, firstly, embryology would suggest that a fetus has the same moral equivalence and physiology is an unconscious fish (http://www.bbc.com...). Moreover, embryology only proves that "life" begins at conception, but not "personhood." Apart from this, a human being born after 10 minutes is indeed not different from a fetus 10 minutes before birth. And yes, when a fetus is "viable" i.e. able to survive without the hosting women, then yes, the "fetus" cannot be justifiably killed. But a fetus whose moral equivalence is the same as an unconscious fish cannot be justifiably protected under the 14th Amendment, which, furthermore, states that "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."

A person is simply defined as a human being. So if a foetus is a human being, it is an analytic fact that a foetus is a person.
Embryology doesn't weigh in on issues such as whether a foetus has moral value, but what it does do is establish that a foetus is a human being. From this basis, we can establish personhood.

Furthermore, the clause that "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." simply denies foetuses' citizenship, it doesn't deny them personhood.



At 8/30/2015 10:49:04 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:
To not be deprived of life is simply to not be killed. Since abortion kills a foetus, it follows that it is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. It's quite simple.

At 8/30/2015 10:33:17 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Constitution's definition of "person," as established in Roe v. Wade, is postnatal.

The SCOTUS can be, and has been before, very misguided. Why not this time? It seems that Roe v. Wade is misguided, because birth doesn't in any way change the ontology of a human being.

btw the Constitution doesn't recognise ontology as a valid judicial strategy.

On what other basis can we justifiably ascribe personhood if not ontology? Surely a being is a person due to what type of being it is? Since birth doesn't change what type of being a foetus is, it is misguided to consider birth as the criteria to personhood.

When the SCOTUS defines "personhood," they define it accordingly to the Constitution, not to ontology. They define it accordingly to laws and statutes, not to the speculative a priori theories created in Athens, or by Hegel. Apart from this, ontology is one of those things which always has a different "side" to the story: for example, you could say x is a person, and put millions of a priori reasons for it. But simply because it is a priori and synthetic, means that the same could be asserted, with equal proof, of the opposite of it. This puts Constitutional interpretation on shaky grounds: what is the ontology of the United States, or corporations etc.? SCOTUS cannot deal with speculative laws, as it has the duty to interpret the Constitution practically and objectively.

Okay then, if SCOTUS is to disregard philosophical and empirical discourse and focus entirely on interpreting the constitution, we still have little grounds for limiting personhood to post-natal beings. The only thing that comes close is the 'born and naturalised' clause, but even this doesn't entail that you need to be born to be a person.
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 1:42:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 10:56:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:

1. The fetus feels no pain till the 20th week of pregnancy [http://www.mccl.org...], and that's per *Conservative* estimates -- the scientific agreement generally lies around 24 weeks [http://www.factcheck.org...]. In that case, there's no real difference between killing a fetus prior to 20 weeks and killing a sponge.

2. This would entail multiple, subjective interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the body charged with interpreting the Constitution -- if any other body claims its interpretation is "better," then interpretation of the Constitution becomes subjective, meaning no law is final and only anarchy can prevail. We can only presume the Supreme Court's supremacy in interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Jackson once remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible . . . because we are final." As the Supreme Court stated in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court gets to decide "what the law is."

Umm if the Supreme Court overturning its own opinions sometimes inevitably leads to anarchy, we would've been in anarchy already. Woe v. Wade is probably THE case to bring up when you think of blatant judicial activism...sorry, but an amendment written in the mid 19th century to provide rights to ex-slaves doesn't protect abortion rights lol. Many liberal scholars will readily admit it's a wonky decision using backward-asss reasoning.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 2:00:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 11:14:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:56:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:

1. The fetus feels no pain till the 20th week of pregnancy [http://www.mccl.org...], and that's per *Conservative* estimates -- the scientific agreement generally lies around 24 weeks [http://www.factcheck.org...]. In that case, there's no real difference between killing a fetus prior to 20 weeks and killing a sponge.

Comatose people cannot feel pain, so are they equivalent to sponges as well?

Permanently comatose people are equivalent to sponges. If it's temporary, then it depends on *their* will to live, since they would have had a sense of will and identity. Fetuses don't even want to live -- they don't have "wants."



2. This would entail multiple, subjective interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the body charged with interpreting the Constitution -- if any other body claims its interpretation is "better," then interpretation of the Constitution becomes subjective, meaning no law is final and only anarchy can prevail. We can only presume the Supreme Court's supremacy in interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Jackson once remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible . . . because we are final." As the Supreme Court stated in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court gets to decide "what the law is."

What about Plessy vs Ferguson? Did the SCOTUS ruling mean that segregation was constitutional? In which case, if it was constitutional then why is segregation not constitutional now?

Simply enough -- because the Supreme Court *said so.*
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 2:14:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 2:00:49 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/30/2015 11:14:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:56:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:

1. The fetus feels no pain till the 20th week of pregnancy [http://www.mccl.org...], and that's per *Conservative* estimates -- the scientific agreement generally lies around 24 weeks [http://www.factcheck.org...]. In that case, there's no real difference between killing a fetus prior to 20 weeks and killing a sponge.

Comatose people cannot feel pain, so are they equivalent to sponges as well?

Permanently comatose people are equivalent to sponges. If it's temporary, then it depends on *their* will to live, since they would have had a sense of will and identity. Fetuses don't even want to live -- they don't have "wants."



2. This would entail multiple, subjective interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the body charged with interpreting the Constitution -- if any other body claims its interpretation is "better," then interpretation of the Constitution becomes subjective, meaning no law is final and only anarchy can prevail. We can only presume the Supreme Court's supremacy in interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Jackson once remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible . . . because we are final." As the Supreme Court stated in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court gets to decide "what the law is."

What about Plessy vs Ferguson? Did the SCOTUS ruling mean that segregation was constitutional? In which case, if it was constitutional then why is segregation not constitutional now?

Simply enough -- because the Supreme Court *said so.*

Obviously the Supreme Court justices are the holders of sovereignty in this country since power to "interpret" the constitution is power to rewrite the constitution. From a practical matter, sure, these things are constitutional law because the Supreme Court said so...but that isn't a sound argument for the actual decision. That would be like saying in the 1950s that the theory of plate tectonics was simply untrue because the scientific establishment said so. It isn't an argument derived from reason.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 2:15:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 2:14:07 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/30/2015 2:00:49 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/30/2015 11:14:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:56:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:

1. The fetus feels no pain till the 20th week of pregnancy [http://www.mccl.org...], and that's per *Conservative* estimates -- the scientific agreement generally lies around 24 weeks [http://www.factcheck.org...]. In that case, there's no real difference between killing a fetus prior to 20 weeks and killing a sponge.

Comatose people cannot feel pain, so are they equivalent to sponges as well?

Permanently comatose people are equivalent to sponges. If it's temporary, then it depends on *their* will to live, since they would have had a sense of will and identity. Fetuses don't even want to live -- they don't have "wants."



2. This would entail multiple, subjective interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the body charged with interpreting the Constitution -- if any other body claims its interpretation is "better," then interpretation of the Constitution becomes subjective, meaning no law is final and only anarchy can prevail. We can only presume the Supreme Court's supremacy in interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Jackson once remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible . . . because we are final." As the Supreme Court stated in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court gets to decide "what the law is."

What about Plessy vs Ferguson? Did the SCOTUS ruling mean that segregation was constitutional? In which case, if it was constitutional then why is segregation not constitutional now?

Simply enough -- because the Supreme Court *said so.*

Obviously the Supreme Court justices are the holders of sovereignty in this country since power to "interpret" the constitution is power to rewrite the constitution. From a practical matter, sure, these things are constitutional law because the Supreme Court said so...but that isn't a sound argument for the actual decision. That would be like saying in the 1950s that the theory of plate tectonics was simply untrue because the scientific establishment said so. It isn't an argument derived from reason.

I'm not arguing for the Roe v. Wade decision -- rather, I'm saying the decision is not necessarily *unconstitutional,* as Philocat is affirming.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 2:18:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 2:15:25 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/30/2015 2:14:07 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/30/2015 2:00:49 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/30/2015 11:14:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:56:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:

1. The fetus feels no pain till the 20th week of pregnancy [http://www.mccl.org...], and that's per *Conservative* estimates -- the scientific agreement generally lies around 24 weeks [http://www.factcheck.org...]. In that case, there's no real difference between killing a fetus prior to 20 weeks and killing a sponge.

Comatose people cannot feel pain, so are they equivalent to sponges as well?

Permanently comatose people are equivalent to sponges. If it's temporary, then it depends on *their* will to live, since they would have had a sense of will and identity. Fetuses don't even want to live -- they don't have "wants."



2. This would entail multiple, subjective interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the body charged with interpreting the Constitution -- if any other body claims its interpretation is "better," then interpretation of the Constitution becomes subjective, meaning no law is final and only anarchy can prevail. We can only presume the Supreme Court's supremacy in interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Jackson once remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible . . . because we are final." As the Supreme Court stated in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court gets to decide "what the law is."

What about Plessy vs Ferguson? Did the SCOTUS ruling mean that segregation was constitutional? In which case, if it was constitutional then why is segregation not constitutional now?

Simply enough -- because the Supreme Court *said so.*

Obviously the Supreme Court justices are the holders of sovereignty in this country since power to "interpret" the constitution is power to rewrite the constitution. From a practical matter, sure, these things are constitutional law because the Supreme Court said so...but that isn't a sound argument for the actual decision. That would be like saying in the 1950s that the theory of plate tectonics was simply untrue because the scientific establishment said so. It isn't an argument derived from reason.

I'm not arguing for the Roe v. Wade decision -- rather, I'm saying the decision is not necessarily *unconstitutional,* as Philocat is affirming.

Meh, just a semantic argument imo. Yes it is technically constitutional--but his argument is that just blindly appealing to the Supreme Court is not a good argument for the decision because it's overturned its own decisions before, like Plessy.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 3:38:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 2:00:49 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/30/2015 11:14:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:56:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:

1. The fetus feels no pain till the 20th week of pregnancy [http://www.mccl.org...], and that's per *Conservative* estimates -- the scientific agreement generally lies around 24 weeks [http://www.factcheck.org...]. In that case, there's no real difference between killing a fetus prior to 20 weeks and killing a sponge.

Comatose people cannot feel pain, so are they equivalent to sponges as well?

Permanently comatose people are equivalent to sponges. If it's temporary, then it depends on *their* will to live, since they would have had a sense of will and identity. Fetuses don't even want to live -- they don't have "wants."

A foetus is only temporarily comatose as well. They may not 'want' to live in terms of having a conscious desire to continue living, but we cannot doubt that if they were conscious, they would desire to live.




2. This would entail multiple, subjective interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the body charged with interpreting the Constitution -- if any other body claims its interpretation is "better," then interpretation of the Constitution becomes subjective, meaning no law is final and only anarchy can prevail. We can only presume the Supreme Court's supremacy in interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Jackson once remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible . . . because we are final." As the Supreme Court stated in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court gets to decide "what the law is."

What about Plessy vs Ferguson? Did the SCOTUS ruling mean that segregation was constitutional? In which case, if it was constitutional then why is segregation not constitutional now?

Simply enough -- because the Supreme Court *said so.*

So was segregation constitutional? If so, how can something be both constitutional and unconstitutional at different points in time?
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 8:33:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It comes down to who's life you are willing to impair: the mother's or the child's.
Raising a child is quite the task and requires lots of time and money, so putting the child before the mom, who has hopes and dreams, would impair her figurative life. Whereas preventing a child from being born greatly impairs their literal life.
I personally think that the mother should come before the fetus, but once the child is born, the child takes priority over the mother.

Why does your position change just because the child is born? If we should decide to terminate a life based on the impact to hopes and dreams then would we not be free to terminate the child's life up until about 10 years of age?
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 8:46:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Comatose people cannot feel pain, so are they equivalent to sponges as well?

Permanently comatose people are equivalent to sponges. If it's temporary, then it depends on *their* will to live, since they would have had a sense of will and identity. Fetuses don't even want to live -- they don't have "wants."

How do you determine which comatose patients are permanent and which are temporary? It seems like a fetus is a temporary comatose patiently with the greatest likelihood of recovery.

Stating the a fetus doesn't want to live and also that a fetus don't have "wants" is contradictory. Not having the capacity to desire an outcome or more importantly, not having the ability to express a desire for an outcome, is not the same as not desiring an outcome. It seems to me that almost any ethical framework that one would subscribe to would place the fetus first since we cannot know what it desires. Therefore, if we terminate it's life we make the choice for it. Instead, the greater good would be to let the fetus live until it was capable of making the choice for itself.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 12:26:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 12:36:42 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:23:26 PM, 18Karl wrote:
At 8/30/2015 11:14:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:56:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:

1. The fetus feels no pain till the 20th week of pregnancy [http://www.mccl.org...], and that's per *Conservative* estimates -- the scientific agreement generally lies around 24 weeks [http://www.factcheck.org...]. In that case, there's no real difference between killing a fetus prior to 20 weeks and killing a sponge.

Comatose people cannot feel pain, so are they equivalent to sponges as well?


2. This would entail multiple, subjective interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the body charged with interpreting the Constitution -- if any other body claims its interpretation is "better," then interpretation of the Constitution becomes subjective, meaning no law is final and only anarchy can prevail. We can only presume the Supreme Court's supremacy in interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Jackson once remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible . . . because we are final." As the Supreme Court stated in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court gets to decide "what the law is."

What about Plessy vs Ferguson? Did the SCOTUS ruling mean that segregation was constitutional? In which case, if it was constitutional then why is segregation not constitutional now?

You can argue forever about why the SCOTUS is wrong during Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood v. Cassey. But can you provide any judicial evidence, apart from your legal dictionaries, to prove that unwanted fetuses have the right to life?

Foetal homicide laws.





At 8/30/2015 10:47:57 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:
To not be deprived of life is simply to not be killed. Since abortion kills a foetus, it follows that it is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. It's quite simple.

At 8/30/2015 10:33:17 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Constitution's definition of "person," as established in Roe v. Wade, is postnatal.

The SCOTUS can be, and has been before, very misguided. Why not this time? It seems that Roe v. Wade is misguided, because birth doesn't in any way change the ontology of a human being.

prove it.

Embryology.

A human being 10 minutes prior to birth is not ontologically different from a human being 10 minutes after birth. Birth is just a change in location.

Welp, firstly, embryology would suggest that a fetus has the same moral equivalence and physiology is an unconscious fish (http://www.bbc.com...). Moreover, embryology only proves that "life" begins at conception, but not "personhood." Apart from this, a human being born after 10 minutes is indeed not different from a fetus 10 minutes before birth. And yes, when a fetus is "viable" i.e. able to survive without the hosting women, then yes, the "fetus" cannot be justifiably killed. But a fetus whose moral equivalence is the same as an unconscious fish cannot be justifiably protected under the 14th Amendment, which, furthermore, states that "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."

A person is simply defined as a human being. So if a foetus is a human being, it is an analytic fact that a foetus is a person.
Embryology doesn't weigh in on issues such as whether a foetus has moral value, but what it does do is establish that a foetus is a human being. From this basis, we can establish personhood.

Furthermore, the clause that "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." simply denies foetuses' citizenship, it doesn't deny them personhood.

welp, I'm a person. But I am not a citizen of the United States. Hence, the 2nd Amendment, or the 14th for that matter, cannot apply to me. Hence, it seems that you are indeed affirming that fetal rights aren't protected under the Amendment.






At 8/30/2015 10:49:04 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:
To not be deprived of life is simply to not be killed. Since abortion kills a foetus, it follows that it is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. It's quite simple.

At 8/30/2015 10:33:17 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Constitution's definition of "person," as established in Roe v. Wade, is postnatal.

The SCOTUS can be, and has been before, very misguided. Why not this time? It seems that Roe v. Wade is misguided, because birth doesn't in any way change the ontology of a human being.

btw the Constitution doesn't recognise ontology as a valid judicial strategy.

On what other basis can we justifiably ascribe personhood if not ontology? Surely a being is a person due to what type of being it is? Since birth doesn't change what type of being a foetus is, it is misguided to consider birth as the criteria to personhood.

When the SCOTUS defines "personhood," they define it accordingly to the Constitution, not to ontology. They define it accordingly to laws and statutes, not to the speculative a priori theories created in Athens, or by Hegel. Apart from this, ontology is one of those things which always has a different "side" to the story: for example, you could say x is a person, and put millions of a priori reasons for it. But simply because it is a priori and synthetic, means that the same could be asserted, with equal proof, of the opposite of it. This puts Constitutional interpretation on shaky grounds: what is the ontology of the United States, or corporations etc.? SCOTUS cannot deal with speculative laws, as it has the duty to interpret the Constitution practically and objectively.

Okay then, if SCOTUS is to disregard philosophical and empirical discourse and focus entirely on interpreting the constitution, we still have little grounds for limiting personhood to post-natal beings. The only thing that comes close is the 'born and naturalised' clause, but even this doesn't entail that you need to be born to be a person.

Welp, again, we had this huge debate. In all other instances in which the word "Person" was used in the Constitution, the word never meant to include fetuses. In A1,2 C1. we are told that "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years." In A3 9 c.8, we are told that "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." Quite simply, the Constitution's reference to person never included fetuses.
praise the lord Chin Chin
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 8:31:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 12:26:30 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:36:42 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:23:26 PM, 18Karl wrote:
At 8/30/2015 11:14:39 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:56:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:

1. The fetus feels no pain till the 20th week of pregnancy [http://www.mccl.org...], and that's per *Conservative* estimates -- the scientific agreement generally lies around 24 weeks [http://www.factcheck.org...]. In that case, there's no real difference between killing a fetus prior to 20 weeks and killing a sponge.

Comatose people cannot feel pain, so are they equivalent to sponges as well?


2. This would entail multiple, subjective interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the body charged with interpreting the Constitution -- if any other body claims its interpretation is "better," then interpretation of the Constitution becomes subjective, meaning no law is final and only anarchy can prevail. We can only presume the Supreme Court's supremacy in interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Jackson once remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible . . . because we are final." As the Supreme Court stated in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court gets to decide "what the law is."

What about Plessy vs Ferguson? Did the SCOTUS ruling mean that segregation was constitutional? In which case, if it was constitutional then why is segregation not constitutional now?

You can argue forever about why the SCOTUS is wrong during Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood v. Cassey. But can you provide any judicial evidence, apart from your legal dictionaries, to prove that unwanted fetuses have the right to life?

Foetal homicide laws.





At 8/30/2015 10:47:57 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:
To not be deprived of life is simply to not be killed. Since abortion kills a foetus, it follows that it is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. It's quite simple.

At 8/30/2015 10:33:17 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Constitution's definition of "person," as established in Roe v. Wade, is postnatal.

The SCOTUS can be, and has been before, very misguided. Why not this time? It seems that Roe v. Wade is misguided, because birth doesn't in any way change the ontology of a human being.

prove it.

Embryology.

A human being 10 minutes prior to birth is not ontologically different from a human being 10 minutes after birth. Birth is just a change in location.

Welp, firstly, embryology would suggest that a fetus has the same moral equivalence and physiology is an unconscious fish (http://www.bbc.com...). Moreover, embryology only proves that "life" begins at conception, but not "personhood." Apart from this, a human being born after 10 minutes is indeed not different from a fetus 10 minutes before birth. And yes, when a fetus is "viable" i.e. able to survive without the hosting women, then yes, the "fetus" cannot be justifiably killed. But a fetus whose moral equivalence is the same as an unconscious fish cannot be justifiably protected under the 14th Amendment, which, furthermore, states that "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."

A person is simply defined as a human being. So if a foetus is a human being, it is an analytic fact that a foetus is a person.
Embryology doesn't weigh in on issues such as whether a foetus has moral value, but what it does do is establish that a foetus is a human being. From this basis, we can establish personhood.

Furthermore, the clause that "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." simply denies foetuses' citizenship, it doesn't deny them personhood.

welp, I'm a person. But I am not a citizen of the United States. Hence, the 2nd Amendment, or the 14th for that matter, cannot apply to me. Hence, it seems that you are indeed affirming that fetal rights aren't protected under the Amendment.

No, the constitution states that all persons, regardless of whether they are US citizens, have a right to life. So the debate over whether a foetus is a US citizen doesn't pertain to the debate over whether it is a person.








At 8/30/2015 10:49:04 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 8/30/2015 10:45:08 AM, Philocat wrote:
To not be deprived of life is simply to not be killed. Since abortion kills a foetus, it follows that it is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. It's quite simple.

At 8/30/2015 10:33:17 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Constitution's definition of "person," as established in Roe v. Wade, is postnatal.

The SCOTUS can be, and has been before, very misguided. Why not this time? It seems that Roe v. Wade is misguided, because birth doesn't in any way change the ontology of a human being.

btw the Constitution doesn't recognise ontology as a valid judicial strategy.

On what other basis can we justifiably ascribe personhood if not ontology? Surely a being is a person due to what type of being it is? Since birth doesn't change what type of being a foetus is, it is misguided to consider birth as the criteria to personhood.

When the SCOTUS defines "personhood," they define it accordingly to the Constitution, not to ontology. They define it accordingly to laws and statutes, not to the speculative a priori theories created in Athens, or by Hegel. Apart from this, ontology is one of those things which always has a different "side" to the story: for example, you could say x is a person, and put millions of a priori reasons for it. But simply because it is a priori and synthetic, means that the same could be asserted, with equal proof, of the opposite of it. This puts Constitutional interpretation on shaky grounds: what is the ontology of the United States, or corporations etc.? SCOTUS cannot deal with speculative laws, as it has the duty to interpret the Constitution practically and objectively.

Okay then, if SCOTUS is to disregard philosophical and empirical discourse and focus entirely on interpreting the constitution, we still have little grounds for limiting personhood to post-natal beings. The only thing that comes close is the 'born and naturalised' clause, but even this doesn't entail that you need to be born to be a person.

Welp, again, we had this huge debate. In all other instances in which the word "Person" was used in the Constitution, the word never meant to include fetuses. In A1,2 C1. we are told that "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years." In A3 9 c.8, we are told that "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." Quite simply, the Constitution's reference to person never included fetuses.

The constitution never refers to adolescents either, does that mean that teenagers aren't persons?