steen said:I am not so sure in this case. Blastula had access to the text and picked one part of and claimed it proved what the rest of the text very explicitly denied. I am not sure that falls under a mere mistake. It was a bit to deliberate for that.
steen said:here is what he said:
IX
The District Court held that the appellee failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the Texas statute's infringement upon Roe's rights was necessary to support a compelling state interest, and that, although the appellee presented "several compelling justifications for state presence in the area of abortions," the statutes outstripped these justifications and swept "far beyond any areas of compelling state interest." 314 F. Supp., at 1222-1223. Appellant and appellee both contest that holding. Appellant, as has been indicated, claims an absolute right that bars any state imposition of criminal penalties in the area. Appellee argues that the State's determination to recognize and protect prenatal life from and after conception constitutes a compelling state interest. As noted above, we do not agree fully with either formulation.
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, [SIZE=-1][410 U.S. 113, 157] [/SIZE]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.
The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [SIZE=-1][410 U.S. 113, 158] [/SIZE]All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. 55 This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F. Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N. Y. 2d 194, 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind., at ___, 285 N. E. 2d, at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [410 U.S. 113, 159] Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.
See the large text? Lots of references.
persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.
Are you blind??blastula said:I see the large text, but I don't see Blackmun say, "The unborn is not a person". So, steen, where does it say explicitly that the unborn is not a person?
jallman said:That means to say what? I am not quite sure what is so hard to understand with the phrase:
Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood.
What is it you are having a hard time with? What is so unclear about that statement? Are you just being argumentative without a point? Thats what it looks like to me. Make a point and I will be happy to discuss it with you.
ngdawg said:Are you blind??
But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word(person) is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158] All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. 55 This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented.
blastula said:Your premise: Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood.
Here's the point:
double standards:
1. Pregnant women: abortion
2. Man: forced child support.
Now, if you apply your solution to women, you get:
Problem B: He wants the fetus carried to term and she does not.
Solution: He makes proper arrangements to care for the child.
Therefore, there shouldn't be any abortion, according to your soulution.
Captain America said:The right to choose life, or deny it...is in your hands America.
jallman said:I'm sorry, I didnt realize I needed to be so explicit.
Problem D Neither wants the fetus carried to term.
Solution Abortion before 18 weeks.
Hope that satisfied your argumentative cravings for me to state the obvious.
doughgirl said:A living firebreathing MONSTER.
blastula said:That did not solve the problem when a man wants the fetus and the woman wants to give birth and forced child support from the man. In the court, the man can't plead, "Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood".
doughgirl said:A living firebreathing MONSTER.
talloulou said:Doughgirl have you defended yourself in the basement yet? If you want to call people firebreathing monster it should probably be done in the basement and we already have a nice thread on abortion going on down there.
It's actually alot of fun down there when you need to spew....
doughgirl said:"Now, split it open, show me where the spinal cord is fully connected to the brain and I will give my nod of assent. Until then, its a picture of a necrotic fetus."
Man oh man............Your nod? God help you jallman........God help you.
If anyone cant see the preciousness of life in that handfull.........they are a monster.
SSlightning said:Is this why I get such a hard time from people for being pro-life?
SSlightning said:Is this why I get such a hard time from people for being pro-life?
jallman said:She is the prime example of why you guys cant get any respect. Unfortunately, she is not unique. You, talloullou, and fantasea are the only ones I have any respect for so far. Fantasea I have the deepest respect for specifically because of this forum. I mean, she challenged me to look deeper, and because of her, I actually shifted my opinions. That takes a lot in an abortion forum.
But saint doughgirl will never have that impact on anyone. Take after fantasea and leave doughgirl to be the non-issue that she is making herself.
jallman said:And thats why I offered an alternative solution...or are we just being argumentative without actually reading the posts? :roll:
blastula said:Alternative solution is good. So also is the alternative solution for abortion: adoption.
doughgirl said:talloulou good suggestion thank you. I have never been in the basement. There is enough potty mouth from jallman right here on this thread, Bull___ every other word, thats enough for me........you mean he gets worse down there? I can only imagine. No actually I can imagine :rofl
Oh, saint doughgirl finds it perfectly acceptable to lie and misrepresent everything someone says, but she is going to take offense at being called to the carpet for her bullshit. And especially that she would show offense to a word that doesnt even blank out here on the forum. Sorry, but I aint buyin your bullshit.
No thanks.........I'll stay here. "Monster" is as bad as I'll get.......and I apologize to my fellow pro-lifers if I got a bit angry. But really they spew words and names at us here so I don't really feel bad.
Only when you lie and misrepresent everything that is posted. Thats when you get called to the carpet for your BULLSHIT. You arent fooling anyone.
Being called a "freak" from someone who well we all know what he advocates, is fine with me......
Sort of like when you made that extra effort to call me tootsie, huh? Oh but lets not hold saint doughgirl to the same standard she applies to everyone else. You arent just a hypocrite in your application of the pro-life stance, you are just a hypocrite in general.:mrgreen:
blastula said:That's just a lame excuse.
Do you have any respect for steen?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?