Where in the Constitution of the US...

[kerussll]

CITE; [1.1] Baby Theresa.

Theresa Ann Campo Pearson was born in Florida on March 21, 1992. News accounts of her story referred to her simply as “Baby Theresa.” She suffered from anencephaly (df.): the condition of an infant born with its cerebrum, cerebellum and part of its skull and scalp missing; infants born with this condition have no possibility of conscious experience and nearly always die within several days after birth. <snipped for brevity>

Accordingly, we (the Florida State Supreme Court) find no basis to expand the common law to equate anencephaly with death. We acknowledge the possibility that some infants' lives might be saved by using organs from anencephalics who do not meet the traditional definition of "death" we reaffirm today. But weighed against this is the utter lack of consensus, and the questions about the overall utility of such organ donations. The scales clearly tip in favor of not extending the common law in this instance."

So much for the sentience and viability argument.

A baby born with essentially no brain is not a person, but that law didn't say she was now did it? Only that she wasn't dead. Personally I think those organs could go to much better use.

 

[molten_dragon]

Not every appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. You said this to me the other day as well. It puzzled me, but pursuing it seemed like a sidetrack. Since it came up again, I thought I'd go there. I think you're not sure about what makes a logical fallacy. Merely using an authority is not a logical fallacy. Relying on court decisisons as a basis for debate are not a logical fallacy.



Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

Fair enough. I was misusing it apparently. The rest of my point still stands though. I still think there's not a lot of point in bringing court decisions into a debate on abortion, since the ultimate authority on the matter (the supreme court) has spoken on the issue in favor of the pro-choice position. I don't see how it can lead anywhere productive. Chuz can say that the Florida supreme court supports his position all he likes, but a higher court has said differently. There's nothing to debate there.

 

[OxymoronP]

There are some pro-life folks that say that the Constitution of the US protects unborn children. For those that state this could you quote directly where it does this?

Not that I support the Pro Lifers, but can you quote where it prohibits drugs or even allows a goverment to control a substance?

 

[misterman]

There are many threads with intelligent, logical, well-informed people on the anti-abortion side.

This is not one of them.

 

[Chuz Life]

Fair enough. I was misusing it apparently. The rest of my point still stands though. I still think there's not a lot of point in bringing court decisions into a debate on abortion, since the ultimate authority on the matter (the supreme court) has spoken on the issue in favor of the pro-choice position. I don't see how it can lead anywhere productive. Chuz can say that the Florida supreme court supports his position all he likes, but a higher court has said differently. There's nothing to debate there.

The tides,... they be turning.

Happy Birthday Baby K

"March, 1993, Baby K has not required assisted ventilator treatment at Fairfax Hospital, the hospital which sought through Court order to deny Baby K emergency ventilator treatment should she require it
again.

The court battle ended on October 3, 1994 when the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case and allowed a lower ruling to stand. In that United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruling (No. 93-1899, CA-93-68-A, 2/10/94),"

 

[Jerry]

There are some pro-life folks that say that the Constitution of the US protects unborn children. For those that state this could you quote directly where it does this?

Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1. 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.

You only have to be born to be a citizen, but Pro-Life doesn't argue that the unborn are or should be citizens.

Pro-life argues that the unborn are "persons". There is no requirement to be born in order to be a "person".

Therefore, "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"...does not apply to the unborn, while "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." does apply to the unborn.

 

[misterman]

Baby K was, like, born.

The tides,... they be turning.

Happy Birthday Baby K

"March, 1993, Baby K has not required assisted ventilator treatment at Fairfax Hospital, the hospital which sought through Court order to deny Baby K emergency ventilator treatment should she require it
again.

The court battle ended on October 3, 1994 when the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case and allowed a lower ruling to stand. In that United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruling (No. 93-1899, CA-93-68-A, 2/10/94),"

 

[misterman]

Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1. 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.

You only have to be born to be a citizen, but Pro-Life doesn't argue that the unborn are or should be citizens.

Pro-life argues that the unborn are "persons". There is no requirement to be born in order to be a "person".

Therefore, "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"...does not apply to the unborn, while "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." does apply to the unborn.

But only if the unborn are persons. The Constitution doesn't say that. Obviously if the unborn are persons, the Constitution would apply to them like any other person. I believe the claim was that the Constitution somehow defines the unborn as persons.

 

[Strucky]

A fetus isn't a person.

Perhaps not to you....I've seen a premature fetus outside of the womb,looks like a person to me.

 

[Jerry]

But only if the unborn are persons. The Constitution doesn't say that. Obviously if the unborn are persons, the Constitution would apply to them like any other person. I believe the claim was that the Constitution somehow defines the unborn as persons.

The Constitution doesn't define anything as a "person". For a long time Blacks weren't persons. They had to argue that they were in the face of the Constitution not already explicitly stating so.

 

[Jerry]

A fetus isn't a person.

Why not?


...........

 

[misterman]

The Constitution doesn't define anything as a "person".

I agree. Go tell those who seem to think it does. They chimed in earlier in this thread with some pretty harebrained legal schemes.

 

[Jerry]

I agree. Go tell those who seem to think it does. They chimed in earlier in this thread with some pretty harebrained legal schemes.

Hmm, well I wasn't here earlier in the thread, and I'm not about to dig up other posts. If they want, they can post their arguments again.

 

[Kal'Stang]

This is the text of 14th Amendment, section 1

Please note the distinctions it draws between "citizens" (persons born or naturalized,...) and "persons."

Note also, that all "persons" (be they citizens or not) have rights to their lives, liberty, due process and equal protection.

14th Amendment, Section 1

1. 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.

Does this help?

First problem: The first time it says "persons" in the 14th amendment it is talking directly about people that are already born. And that is exactly how the founders originally meant it as they were at the time more concerned with whole people. You must remember that at the time of the Constitutions writing miscarriages happened quite frequently. Being as this was common knowledge it is easy to deduce that they were only concerned with those that were born (ie out of the womb).

Second problem: Your bolded "citizens" is really irrelevent here as anyone can become a citizen by simply being born here or applying for citizenship. (granted there's a bit more to it than that but I simplified it for arguements sake)

Third problem: The second and third time that you bolded "persons" they were talking about the people facing the justice system. IE a cop cannot just shoot a criminal on a whim. This was to prevent vigilantism as even then they recognized that such behavior could lead to murder and anarchy. It was also to prevent the government from just offing anyone that they felt threatened them.

So how can a fetus face the justice system or make someone in government feel threatened? They cannot. One there would be no need for them to as they can't exactly commit any crimes or threaten anyone confined to a small space as they are. Two they cannot defend themselves with any sort of communication skill or physicality. Because of these points it would be pointless to write such legislation.

In essence the founders of our constitution were more concerned with more immediate concerns than a fetus that had a good chance of not even coming out of the womb. So they were not even considered while writing the Constitution.

Basing your arguement on single words in the constitution means nothing if you completely leave the context of what is written out of it. It would be like writting a constitution with the word "The" and no other words to give "The" meaning.

 

[molten_dragon]

The tides,... they be turning.

Happy Birthday Baby K

"March, 1993, Baby K has not required assisted ventilator treatment at Fairfax Hospital, the hospital which sought through Court order to deny Baby K emergency ventilator treatment should she require it
again.

The court battle ended on October 3, 1994 when the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case and allowed a lower ruling to stand. In that United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruling (No. 93-1899, CA-93-68-A, 2/10/94),"

What does this have to do with abortion?

The ruling stated that it was illegal for the hospital to deny life support to the baby when its mother wished for it to have life support. Which is absolutely as it should be. I may disagree with the mother's choice (The poor thing had no future, its organs would have been put to good use in children that did), but it's her choice to make, not the hospital's.

Which is (oddly enough) the reason I support abortion as well. It's the woman's choice whether she wants to continue providing the child with life support, no one else's.

 

[molten_dragon]

Perhaps not to you....I've seen a premature fetus outside of the womb,looks like a person to me.

I find it hilarious that you thanked this post Chuz. Weren't you the one that had a quote in your sig to the effects of:

"Obamoron: One who states that a child is not a child until it looks too much like a child to be denied."

And here you are, thanking a post that puts forth the idea that looks are a perfectly fine definition of personhood.

Oh the irony.

:rofl

 

[molten_dragon]

The Constitution doesn't define anything as a "person".

I completely agree, the constitution gives rights to persons, but doesn't define what those persons are. Therefore we're left to debate the issue amongst ourselves.

 

[windovervocalcords]

I completely agree, the constitution gives rights to persons, but doesn't define what those persons are. Therefore we're left to debate the issue amongst ourselves.

We're left with the Supreme Courts ruling about personhood.

 

[molten_dragon]

We're left with the Supreme Courts ruling about personhood.

True, as far as the legality of the issue goes, but I've already said my piece about using court rulings in this sort of debate. It never goes anywhere productive, because there's nothing about it to debate.

 

[friday]

True, as far as the legality of the issue goes, but I've already said my piece about using court rulings in this sort of debate. It never goes anywhere productive, because there's nothing about it to debate.

I have one thing to say about this whole Supreme Court thing: Dred Scott.

 

[molten_dragon]

I have one thing to say about this whole Supreme Court thing: Dred Scott.

Okay, but what point are you trying to make. Yes, supreme court cases are sometimes overturned, but how does that support your arguments?

 

[friday]

Okay, but what point are you trying to make. Yes, supreme court cases are sometimes overturned, but how does that support your arguments?

Do you think the Dred Scott decision was wrong and should never have gone that way in the first place? Or do you think the Supreme Court was right when they made that decision, and then right again when they overturned it?

 

[molten_dragon]

Do you think the Dred Scott decision was wrong and should never have gone that way in the first place? Or do you think the Supreme Court was right when they made that decision, and then right again when they overturned it?

I think they were wrong to decide that way in the first place. The slavery issue is a very different one than the abortion issue.

 

[friday]

I think they were wrong to decide that way in the first place. The slavery issue is a very different one than the abortion issue.

The core slavery issue is no different than abortion. One segment of society redefined the person hood of another segment and then abused and murdered them. The Democrats called it constitutional, the Republicans were the fanatical abolitionists. Actually, they are almost exactly the same. In fact, some even argue, like the slave owners did, that abortion is good for the economy.

 

[molten_dragon]

The core slavery issue is no different than abortion. One segment of society redefined the person hood of another segment and then abused and murdered them. The Democrats called it constitutional, the Republicans were the fanatical abolitionists. Actually, they are almost exactly the same. In fact, some even argue, like the slave owners did, that abortion is good for the economy.

As with any moral issue, there is no right or wrong answer. The underlying reasoning behind pro-abortion and pro-slavery points of view are very different.