- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 30,488
- Reaction score
- 8,841
- Location
- Flaw-i-duh
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
A person's a person no matter how small.
What makes someone a person is always birth. That cannot be disputed. I never said it has anything to do with size.
It's my opinion. That's what you asked for.
disagreeWhat makes someone a person is always birth.
i doThat cannot be disputed.
you asked for without emotional language, and there you go.I never said it has anything to do with size.
It's dumb to pretend there's a singular, objective definition of a person.I clearly asked for fact-based opinions. You posted one that totally ignores the legal, medical, social, literal, and historical definition of a person.
It's dumb to pretend there's a singular, objective definition of a person.
Disagree or disapprove all you want. But you're wrong. An unborn is not a person until birth. That's simple constitutional and legal fact.disagree
i do
you asked for without emotional language, and there you go.
You have absolutely no proof of that.Disagree or disapprove all you want. But you're wrong. An unborn is not a person until birth. That's simple constitutional and legal fact.
You have absolutely no proof of that.
That and the fact that very "small" person would be a very dead if born too early. So size and development do matter.I clearly asked for fact-based opinions. You posted one that totally ignores the legal, medical, social, literal, and historical definition of a person.
It can and is disputed, as your statement is not a scientific one but a philosophical one. It is better to err on the side of humanizing than dehumanizing. We have enough examples throughout history and around the world of the effects of dehumanization.What makes someone a person is always birth. That cannot be disputed. I never said it has anything to do with size.
The constitution does not use the phrase "born" anywhere, so why is this completely objective?You have to be an idiot to think "person" is not a completely objective word that only mean one thing: under constitutional law: a born homo sapiens.
The 14th amendmentThe constitution does not use the phrase "born" anywhere, so why is this completely objective?
That and the fact that very "small" person would be a very dead if born too early. So size and development do matter.
oh, so british aren't persons? Mexicans aren't persons? Africans aren't persons? You know, just as the constitution intended...You obviously never took American history or government classes in high school. In both classes, students are required to memorize this part of the 14th Amendment: "All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States . . ."
Because talking about life isn't the same as talking about someone's citizenship, and other civic matters the constitution covers. Russians aren't "persons born or naturalized in the US", and as such, we have every right to subject them to propaganda and other tactics from the intel community as a means of fighting their government. Things we're not allowed to do to our own citizens. BUT, that doesn't mean you have the right to just start butchering random russians with a scalpel. That's just not how that works.Show me exactly how that is not a completely objective and strictly defined use of the word "persons" to exclude the unborn under the rule of law.
That's why I said size and development.Size alone does not determine personhood. If it did, you could say a full-term baby is not a person based on weight. Development is more important. Does the fetus have a fully functional heart, pair of lungs, etc.? Is it more than just 5-10 pounds of living tissues and organs?
Not recognized as Americans under U.S. Law.oh, so british aren't persons? Mexicans aren't persons? Africans aren't persons? You know, just as the constitution intended...
Because talking about life isn't the same as talking about someone's citizenship, and other civic matters the constitution covers. Russians aren't "persons born or naturalized in the US", and as such, we have every right to subject them to propaganda and other tactics from the intel community as a means of fighting their government. BUT, that doesn't mean you have the right to just start butchering random russians with a scalpel. That's just not how that works.
the 14the amendment doesn't ban enslaving "persons" who are not citizens of the US. Does that means it's fine to enslave chinese people? Like if an american did that, that's his right because chinese aren't considered "persons" under the 14th amendment?The 14th amendment
The implication being someone born in Canada isn't a person?The 14th amendment
you're right, they're not americans. That doesn't mean it's okay to murder them. You go tour in another country, and you murder someone who's not a US citizen, the US can and will prosecute you(if the home country doesnt do so first).Not recognized as Americans under U.S. Law.
The Constitution is the framework for American government. It is for people born in America. It does not recognize Mexicans / Brits as it's the framework for our country.The implication being someone born in Canada isn't a person?
Oh, so British aren't persons? Mexicans aren't persons? Africans aren't persons? You know, just as the constitution intended.
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?