South Dakota

[RightinNYC]

The law deems them as non persons, since a non person is a person whose existence is systematically ignored or concealed, just like it says.

I'll try another angle to explain this to you. Can you please show me the case law that rules on these "persons" or "non persons" in either context?

 

[jallman]

So you agree the law is flawed then?

lame. I stated that your logic is flawed. The law is just fine.

 

[FallingPianos]

The law deems them as non persons, since a non person is a person whose existence is systematically ignored or concealed, just like it says.

care to repeat that...let me do it for you:

jimmyjack
a non person is a person

anyone else see the logical flaw in that?

I do.

We all agree!

I was saying that your logic is flawed. you agree with that?

 

[jimmyjack]

I'll try another angle to explain this to you. Can you please show me the case law that rules on these "persons" or "non persons" in either context?

A non person is the logical conclusion when a human being is deemed to be not a person.

 

[RightinNYC]

A non person is the logical conclusion when a human being is deemed to be not a person.

So show me the case law where the human being was deemed to not be a person.

 

[jimmyjack]

So show me the case law where the human being was deemed to not be a person.

Roe v wade

 

[RightinNYC]

Roe v wade

Quote me the relevant passage that talks about the rights of the unborn, or makes a determination as to the personhood of the fetus.

Have fun searching, you won't find it. Blackmun completely avoided the issue.

 

[BodiSatva]

Without at least one person here...the topic of abortion would actually be a discussion rather than a silly illogical never agree blah blah fest...and that person? Look to NASCAR...

 

[RightinNYC]

Without at least one person here...the topic of abortion would actually be a discussion rather than a silly illogical never agree blah blah fest...and that person? Look to NASCAR...

.............

 

[jimmyjack]

Quote me the relevant passage that talks about the rights of the unborn, or makes a determination as to the personhood of the fetus.

Have fun searching, you won't find it. Blackmun completely avoided the issue.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its (in)famous Roe v. Wade decision. This was the ruling that gave women the right to choose to have a legalized abortion, early in gestation, for any reason. 2 Justice Blackmun noted that there was no consensus in law when life (i.e. human personhood) begins.

He cited a number of references to "person" in the U.S. Constitution. But he found that: "...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."

source

 

[RightinNYC]

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its (in)famous Roe v. Wade decision. This was the ruling that gave women the right to choose to have a legalized abortion, early in gestation, for any reason. 2 Justice Blackmun noted that there was no consensus in law when life (i.e. human personhood) begins.

He cited a number of references to "person" in the U.S. Constitution. But he found that: "...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."

source

Take a deep breath. Then read your own source

So where did he then take that info and say "A fetus does/does not have rights"?

 

[jimmyjack]

Take a deep breath. Then read your own source

So where did he then take that info and say "A fetus does/does not have rights"?

He cited a number of references to "person" in the U.S. Constitution. But he found that: "...in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally.

 

[RightinNYC]

He cited a number of references to "person" in the U.S. Constitution. But he found that: "...in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally.

That's citing historical fact. If I say "In most cases in the past, the term baseball has been loosely used to cover softball and teeball" am I making a value judgement on that statement? Am I saying "Baseball covers softball and teeball?"

No. Im making a statement of prior rulings without offering any opinion of my own.

Show me where Blackmun RULED either way.

 

[Ausonius]

As Justice Blackmun stated in Roe v. Wade, “the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973). This conclusion followed a review of both common law and constitutional precedent, as well as known facts regarding fetal development advanced by the appellee and amicus curiae arguing that a fetus is a person within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., at pp. 133-157. Given this basis for the decision, it would be difficult to conceive of a case that would be grounds for overturning this landmark decision. Certainly, such facile challenges as the South Dakota ban on abortion will be quickly rejected by the federal courts as unconstitutional with the Supreme Court denying certiorari. Rather the more effective strategy appears to be to pick at the periphery with fact-oriented cases as occurred in the Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases following the court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona; the object being to chip away at the decision until, eventually, the exceptions swallow up the rule.

 

[Fantasea]

That's citing historical fact. If I say "In most cases in the past, the term baseball has been loosely used to cover softball and teeball" am I making a value judgement on that statement? Am I saying "Baseball covers softball and teeball?"

No. Im making a statement of prior rulings without offering any opinion of my own.

Show me where Blackmun RULED either way.

All else aside, I think there is agreement in this forum that while Blackmun relied on a great number of opinion based sources, he totally ignored the specific merit of the biology involved by lumping everything together and then saying there was no consensus.

Did that answer the pivotal question? No, it did not, and Blackmun, by his use of the words, "the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.[to the question of whether life begins at conception]", simply dumped the whole thing into the lap of a future court.

Perhaps things were insufficiently clear to Blackmun in 1973. However, during the intervening thirty-three years, scientific and technological advances have caused man's knowledge to develop to the point where there is no longer any doubt that human life begins at conception.

The next time a question hinging on whether life begins at conception comes before the court, "Roe", itself, will be aborted.

The political solution wrought by Blackmun will be displaced by the scientific solution which eluded him.

 

[Fantasea]

So show me the case law where the human being was deemed to not be a person.

Wasn't that a basic tenet of the Third Reich?

 

[FallingPianos]

Wasn't that a basic tenet of the Third Reich?

no, they were just deemed "undesireable."

 

[RightinNYC]

All else aside, I think there is agreement in this forum that while Blackmun relied on a great number of opinion based sources, he totally ignored the specific merit of the biology involved by lumping everything together and then saying there was no consensus.

Did that answer the pivotal question? No, it did not, and Blackmun, by his use of the words, "the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.[to the question of whether life begins at conception]", simply dumped the whole thing into the lap of a future court.

Perhaps things were insufficiently clear to Blackmun in 1973. However, during the intervening thirty-three years, scientific and technological advances have caused man's knowledge to develop to the point where there is no longer any doubt that human life begins at conception.

The next time a question hinging on whether life begins at conception comes before the court, "Roe", itself, will be aborted.

The political solution wrought by Blackmun will be displaced by the scientific solution which eluded him.

And I agree with you.

 

[RightinNYC]

Wasn't that a basic tenet of the Third Reich?

I guess you could consider it so. But what relation does it have to this? Firstly, the case law DOESNT say that. Secondly, another basic tenet of the Third Reich was national pride. Should we avoid waving flags and singing the anthem because they did it?

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Wasn't that a basic tenet of the Third Reich?

no, they were just deemed "undesireable."

Prison Camps
One example are the Nazi extermination camps, in which the Jewish prisoners were treated as "non persons." Since the purpose of these camps was to anonymize, use and dispose of the "unwanted elements" in the most "efficient" way possible. "Non-person" status was required because it easily removes the moral and social obstacles for committing questionable acts of violence, crime and abuse.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonperson

Interesting discussion there. You might want to read it.

What do you think of the final sentence in the paragraph above? Reducing the status of the occupant of a womb to that of "non-person" is an excellent way for the Pro-Death crowd to ease its conscience, especially while proselytizing, isn't it?

That enables them to say, "Abortion does not kill a person, it kills a non-person." How droll.

 

[steen]

One example are the Nazi extermination camps, in which the Jewish prisoners were treated as "non persons."

But there was no actul law to that extend, of course.

That enables them to say, "Abortion does not kill a person, it kills a non-person."

Rather, that is what the law says. So unless you have relevance to the law, you are just babbling.