Based on the 14th amendment in section 1: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life" legalizing abortion is unconstitutional.

Posted by: xhammy

Ask yourself, A: is it human. B: is it alive. C: are you denying it life. Should you find all three to be correct then you may find abortion to be unconstitutional.

  • Unconstitutional

  • Not unconstitutional

35% 8 votes
65% 15 votes
  • Well duh, but I am just a radical right wing nut who hates women.

    Posted by: xhammy
  • Assuming that an unborn being has no feelings is extremely stupid. Of course it has feelings. Research shows that a fetus can begin feeling at 3 weeks of pregnancy. I'll say an important quote which I read on google images: "100% of those who support slavery are not enslaved. 100% of those who support abortion were born. That's how oppression works." How the heck would that not be true?

  • Yes, it is unconstitutional; and congress is liable as well. First off, "citizen" was clearly defined by Sen. Howard when he introduced the bill to the Senate and gave his statement of intent. Hey stated that foreigners and aliens were not protected under this amendment; two terms clearly defined well before that time. Still, proponents of illegal immigration attempt to downplay the Senator's intent as well as common sense and respect for American Citizens by arguing the failure to define "within jurisdiction[...]. However, what they fail to tell you, is the author of the 14th Amendment specifically put in Section 5; a set of words giving congress the ability to shut this down.

  • If at any point it's definition can change to encompass being a full fledged human then it would become unconstitutional ... and we would look back at this discussion and call every nay sayer wrong for believing otherwise. I think its more of a question of 'when' will the definition change. Its fast becoming that all of this constitutionality these people are claiming for abortions will soon all be recognized as unconstitutional.

  • Based on just the 14th Ammendment abortion is constitutional because a fetus is not legally not biologically considered a person.

  • Context is important. If you cherry pick which portions of the constitution you want to use as evidence, then you could find justification for a lot of things.

  • whether or not the fetus qualifies as a 'person' is still disputed, therefore abortion is not unconstitutional since the question of whether or not the fetus is a person in the first place remains unresolved

  • A fetus is not a person, we still have the death penalty and that kills a real person

  • Abortion should be legal until the fetus is viable

  • If a fetus gets rights for being human and living than every living cell in your body would have to receive these same rights. The idea of basing personhood of species also presents problems. You have to find a specific trait which all humans poccess, but are absent in all other species before you can say that personhood should be limited to only humans and I garentee you no such relevent trait exists.

  • A fetus is not a person. At least, not yet.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
PetersSmith says2015-08-20T00:56:09.3398325Z
The death penalty would be unconstitutional according to that as well.
TBR says2015-08-20T01:04:22.8259867Z
Well, its funny he is using the equal protection section. Cut quote, and... Well completely wrong. "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". The state is not getting abortions, women are. This is, like so many of your posts, so fundamentally flawed.
SnaxAttack says2015-08-20T01:09:06.0926025Z
Definition of Human: "Of, relating to, or characteristic of people or human beings". A Fetus is descended from a human, and is defined as a human based on the definition.
SnaxAttack says2015-08-20T01:11:31.7039359Z
@PetersSmith Technically, the Death Penalty is initiated based on the decisions of the criminal. A Fetus has no decision made, so it technically is being murdered because it doesn't have a say. A criminal does if it chooses to murder someone.
TBR says2015-08-20T01:14:59.5511394Z
@SnaxAttack - "Technically" section 1 of the 14 has nothing to do with the actions of the people, only the state. Got it!
SnaxAttack says2015-08-20T01:18:28.6946089Z
Who defines what a state can or cannot do? The people, who either run the state or live in the state. Got it! (By the way, if you don't mind, we are both going to disagree either way so any time we make a point, we should say at the end "Got it".)
TBR says2015-08-20T01:21:13.9713829Z
@SnaxAttack - The constitution is the constitution. The right to an abortion is actually based in the 14th. This poll is about the constitution, and you and xhammy just have this all mess-up. If you want to change the constitution, get to it. Otherwise, stop abusing it so hard.
SnaxAttack says2015-08-20T01:23:55.2359021Z
How is it being abused if we are following what the Constitution is stating?
TBR says2015-08-20T01:26:38.7598933Z
@SnaxAttack - OK. You didn't get it. The state is being restricted from killing or imprisoning without due process. That is Section 1 of the 14th. This is a limit to THE STATE, not the individual. This is so far off the mark it is comical. That you are missing this seems to point a complete misunderstanding of the constitution.
TBR says2015-08-20T01:28:33.4860914Z
Another example is how people complain of "free speech" when some tv station cans some jerk. The right has nothing to do with what private individuals do to limit speech. It has everything to do with what the state CAN'T do to limit speech. This is constitution 101.
SnaxAttack says2015-08-20T01:32:36.4196430Z
Stated in the Constitution: "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". The Constitution may limit a state, but what is wrong with that? We have this rule to protect life, and if you are saying we should deprive life because of limiting a states power; isn't that more unjust, than what is meant?
TBR says2015-08-20T01:34:07.8536439Z
@SnaxAttack - I am saying, this poll, and that reading of the constitution are completely wrong. Due process limits the power of the state. Look elsewhere for your justification. Truth is, again, the protection FOR abortion is from the 14th.
PericIes says2015-08-20T01:40:13.2279757Z
The debate isn't over whether or not fetuses are human. I think they quite clearly are. The debate is over whether or not they're people, and when they become people. Humans and people aren't necessarily the same thing.
PericIes says2015-08-20T01:44:47.9395322Z
I should clarify. "Person" can and often does mean human, but I'm talking more about a high level of sentience. "Person" is used to refer humans so often because we're currently the only creature that we're aware of with such a high level of sentience.
face1995 says2015-08-20T01:47:51.5191935Z
@TBR How is abortion constitutional according to the 14th amendment? When a woman aborts her fetus, she is depriving a person from life, which is her own baby. I understand that some want to abort because they are raped. I understand that they are very traumatized, but killing the fetus is eliminating his/her life. Although it is a child of a criminal, that fetus is not be blamed for the rape. That fetus could and would very likely grow to be a much better person than that rapist. When a woman is pregnant due to rape, however, it is okay for her to give away the baby for adoption once born because it is normal for a woman not to even want to deal with that someone who has come as a result of that criminal's action. A quote says: "You should try your best to help others, and if you don't want to help others, at least don't hurt others." The woman's life is not really being deprived as a result from being prohibited from aborting her baby, unless if not aborting the baby will result in jeopardizing the mother's life in any way. In that kind of case when the baby not being aborted jeopardizes the mother's life in any way towards the extent of death risk, then I am not really sure whether abortion would be okay. In all other abortion cases, the one who is being deprived from life infinitely more is the unborn fetus. Yes, abortion is a choice, but an awful one. Everything is a choice. There are right, wrong, and neutral choices. If the baby is already known to be born by doctors before the baby is born, and the mother wants to abort the baby because of that, then that is following one of Hitler's stupid ideas of killing all of those who are disabled. Hitler didn't only kill the Jewish people. He also killed Muslims, Aryans, Persians, dark-brown-skin people also known as blacks out of color exaggeration as a result of racism, disabled people, those who read the bible a lot, and freemasons. Don't forget that the disabled also got their talents. Many contribute well to the society. Even if a disable didn't have any talent, is doesn't justify aborting him/her before birth because it would be unreasonable discrimination.
TBR says2015-08-20T01:51:15.0295670Z
@face1995 - "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy" and that "[t]his right of privacy . . . Is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." from Roe Wade.
face1995 says2015-08-20T02:01:40.4042341Z
@TBR So is privacy more important than life? Terminating a pregnancy is not a simple thing. When a criminal is out there killing a child and/or children, his/her privacy must be invaded by the FBI to help spot that person for the good and safety of the child(ren). So what good does it really do to a baby when a woman terminates her pregnancy. A woman aborting her fetus is being selfish and justifying one kind of murder. And to make the word abortion clear into its self-explanatory synonym, it is infanticide. What if that aborted fetus was the next Albert Einstein, Tesla, someone who lead an activism to fully stop police racism, someone who invented a machine to bring all viruses to an extinction, someone who improves weather prediction accuracy and makes it extremely accurate for future weather up for the next 24 months or longer, someone who discovers a new way to teach that helps students learn way better, or someone who discovers a way to predict an earthquake or volcanic eruption accurately? Killing a potential great person who is genius and would make the world a much better place is only punishing our own selves in such a way.
Sarra says2015-08-20T02:11:52.6743471Z
You are intentionally and terribly misquoting partial sentences out of context to prove a point that does not exist. "No state shall make or enforce any law which...Shall any state deprive any person of life...Without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
b_merritt says2015-08-20T03:36:57.6099117Z
Still trying to figure out if a fetus is not a person then what is it
komododragon8 says2015-08-20T03:54:47.8145447Z
B_merritt: the fetus is a developing human organism. Also I would like to ask you a question, what justification do you have to give a fetus personhood rights despite the fact that it has a far less developed brain than some lab rat which we experiment on.
Anonymous says2015-08-20T05:04:40.3029181Z
@Snax Grant it personhood, it doesn't matter. It's violating someone else's rights. The state sends people to prison for that, but that doesn't really seem to be an option here. Actually, if the fetus was viable, would you be fine with the mother pressing assault charges and convicting it in a court of law? Cause that's your alternative I guess.
TBR says2015-08-20T15:09:40.2776855Z
I sincerely hate this constitutional bu11shit argument. This is from the same group that make a big stink about "Obama is ripping up the constitution". Its not that hard to understand, but they will attempt to bastardize it however they like. Do they think when Roe Wade was being decided the justness just missed the equal protection part? No, they are justices and like a H.S. Student know it has nothing at all to do with the question.
Greg4586 says2015-08-20T15:25:10.1970078Z
Considiering a huge amount of the debate is whether a fetus is a person or not, no it doesn't make abortion unconstitutional
xhammy says2015-08-20T18:59:38.8286985Z
The death penalty is not because it says without due process of law. Meaning with due process of law the death penalty is ok.
Anonymous says2015-08-20T19:16:10.0434524Z
@xhammy Due process is in place in order to prove guilt. In the case of abortion, 1) The state isn't executing anyone (like TBR said), and 2) The fetus is inherently "guilty" of infringing the mother's rights, so its guilt doesn't need due process to be proved.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-24T16:36:13.1533836Z
A fetus isnt a legally established person in the united states and is not protected under our nations constitution? Guess who else isnt protected by our nations constitution? Every other person who isnt a US Citizen.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-24T16:36:56.8189032Z
I guess we should treat them as second rate too? Harvest some illegal immigrant organs?
TBR says2015-08-24T16:48:46.7151052Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality - Please.... I know you better, and think better of you. This is the worst example of using the constitution poorly I think I have seen on this site. The equal protection clause has nothing to do with the abortion debate. The state is not prosecuting a fetus and sentencing it to death.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-24T18:21:29.8645464Z
No its doing worse. Its not even prosecuting it at all. Its not being represented at all.
tajshar2k says2015-08-24T18:25:37.0795460Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality Are you really comparing a full grown human to a fetus? In case you were, the UN declaration states that the right to live applies to every person. But a fetus isn't a person. Http://www.Un.Org/en/documents/udhr/
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-24T18:30:57.5475020Z
Actually I suppose this in part goes back to that argument you and I had about American values ... And who gets to decide what is American. I believe then it was you saying that no one had any place making claims about a persons equal representation under the constitution based on their belief in that constitution or support of the nations flag or values. In short, it shouldn't matter if the child has yet to have been born in our hospitals or had professed its support for this nation and the constitution. It should still receive the same respect you would give any other individual, at least in the sense of natural human rights and dignity. To let one person go on and deal killing blows to another without any trial or consent to do so, to then also recycle a beings organs without their consent to do so (as if it was even still property of the mother at that point, thats insane.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-24T18:37:59.4603200Z
Xhammy, where'd you get your A, B, and C from? Is there some legal background to it? Has that justification been used to prove this elsewhere? Because ofcourse it is human, of two humans, everything about it is human in make. It's alive, composed of living cells, and they would be denying it life by destroying or depriving those cells of necessities for further life. It'd be the same as if you stopped feeding your 3 year old one day. Neglect. If it caused the death of your child ... Or someone had to intervene to save its life ... You should be branded as such a person and not have the second chance to do such a thing afforded to you until you atoned for what you'd done and could be deemed a responsible parent again. Having to have an abortion at all is irresponsible.
TBR says2015-08-24T18:58:20.6908328Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality - You can believe that it is worst to have an abortion, but can't support the position that the state is putting a fetus on trial. If the state is not putting the fetus on trial, the equal protection clause has nothing to do with the debate.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-24T19:10:51.6940888Z
No, im saying i could get behind it being put on trial (as ridiculous as that sounds). I'm saying its worse because the system is not even representing it, or even all the people a-party-to it for that matter. There are so many others that could be there to represent it in its stead, vs. Having hormonal selfish females running around pushing the killswitch all on their own.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-24T19:12:30.6942272Z
Its father. Other family members, especially heads of household that have a vested interest. Taxpayers (should you happen to be using federal money to carry out your plans).
TBR says2015-08-24T19:15:30.6607355Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality - BUT, as long as it is not being tried, the equal protection clause is meaningless. That is the nut here.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-24T19:19:36.8035528Z
How? They are denying it equal protection of the law by not allowing it to have its day in court and represent itself.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-24T19:20:36.3502796Z
Court trials arent all a negative thing ... It is quite literally a right to be tried in court.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-24T19:23:46.3163504Z
Youre trying to say they have no liability as long as they just don't hear the case? Claim ignorance?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-24T19:25:11.6505384Z
That was the whole point of the clause in the first place ... The government supposedly turning a blind eye toward certain groups of people in the eyes of the law and in their legal representation.
TBR says2015-08-24T19:33:00.3177552Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality - I am saying, the equal protection only matters where it is THE STATE trying an individual. There is no trial. The best you can do is try to distort due process to mean the the state is required to respect laws that don't exist. Its the cart before the horse.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-24T19:49:02.8000336Z
It doesnt say that it must be a trial between the state and an individual at all ... Where it says that "no state shall enforce ..." that broadens it alot. Basically if they even stand by an individual partys claim that what they are doing is legal (like say planned parenthood), thats them enforcing it. Paying into a program that does that knowingly is showing unconstitutional support of a group that is taking away a persons life/liberty. They are just doing it through a 3rd party. That does not excuse them.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-24T19:50:21.9252624Z
They dont have to make a law ... And it doesnt have to make it to court. Their stance in how they enforce for such things to happen under their eye and often on their dime is enough to make them liable.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-24T19:52:25.1840228Z
I know I can dig up a case somewhere where funding = enforcement in the eyes of the law ... Because fines = enforcement. Funding is just the opposite. Theyre both the same thing.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-24T19:52:51.1430884Z
Two sides of the same coin anyway.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-24T19:54:58.6451576Z
If they ever oversaw a case against that institution too, if they presided over it and found in favor of PP, theyd be totally f'ed then.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.