Where in the Constitution of the US...

[Chuz Life]

Actually, the dispute is whether or not the fetus is a person in a single sense of the word. The legal sense.

Well, at least 'someone' gets it.

 

[windovervocalcords]

The decision to legally deny 'personhood' to a fetus has already been decided.

 

[Chuz Life]

The decision to legally deny 'personhood' to a fetus has already been decided.

By no less than the same court that once decided that African Blacks were non-persons.

We all know how infallible the courts are!

Right everybody?

 

[___]

By no less than the same court that once decided that African Blacks were non-persons.

We all know how infallible the courts are!

Right everybody?

Infallible implies wrongness. Is it wrong just because you disagree with it?

Also, as a matter of reasonableness and practicality, how many times does the court need to sit on a case of the same issue? Abortion has been decided 1 with RVW and then reaffirmed with PP v Casey.

-My question to you, is how many MORE times should the courts have to listen to the pro life side brining forth a new case to attempt to ban abortions?

-If that is eventually over turned, how many times should the courts have to listen to the pro choice side side to bring forth a new case to attempt to legalize abortions again?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Actually, the dispute is whether or not the fetus is a person in a single sense of the word. The legal sense.

The legal sense has already been decided. You do know that in Roe V Wade a way to make it legal was suggested right? Until that way is proved then the courts will continue to rule in favor of abortion.

 

[Chuz Life]

Infallible implies wrongness. Is it wrong just because you disagree with it?

No.

However, It 'is' my right to say so when I believe it is.

Also, as a matter of reasonableness and practicality, how many times does the court need to sit on a case of the same issue? Abortion has been decided 1 with RVW and then reaffirmed with PP v Casey.

1: Two wrongs don't make a right.

2: Roe was about the states right to over-rule a woman's right to privacy. The Casey case was divided judgement. A far cry from a direct ruling on the beginning of personhood or even the right an elective abortion.

-My question to you, is how many MORE times should the courts have to listen to the pro life side brining forth a new case to attempt to ban abortions?

The 1st. Amendment applies no limits to the number of times an issue can be brought before the courts for a redress of grievences.

-If that is eventually over turned, how many times should the courts have to listen to the pro choice side side to bring forth a new case to attempt to legalize abortions again?

Both sides (of any issue) have the same rights as the other,... to freely speak, assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievences.

It may not be a perfect system,... but it's the one we have until we find a way to make it a better one.

 

[molten_dragon]

The legal sense has already been decided. You do know that in Roe V Wade a way to make it legal was suggested right? Until that way is proved then the courts will continue to rule in favor of abortion.

I'm aware of that. My point was that the whole debate of the abortion issue essentially boils down to whether a fetus is a legal person and therefore deserving of the rights and protections given in the constitution. The courts may have ruled on it, but people are still arguing about it.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

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?

Amendment 14:

"...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."

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

-If that is eventually over turned, how many times should the courts have to listen to the pro choice side side to bring forth a new case to attempt to legalize abortions again?

Never. Once they've repealed R v W, they'll have rectified a mistake and there won't be any need to repeat.

How many Plessy v Fergusson type cases were heard after the Brown v Board of Education decision?

Abortion is not a federal matter. Authority over such is not granted the Federal government by the Constitution. Ergo, it's a state's rights issue.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

By their logic, we could just round up and shoot all non-citizens and just shoot them and put them in a big pit. It would be perfectly legal.

No.

The Fourteenth Amendment says "all persons" not all "citizens" shall be accorded due process of law.

Nice strawman, easily blown away.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I digress and do not mean to sidetrack the thread, but I feel it is important to clarify how wrong you are.
On the face of things, bury the bastard in a fire ant pit and while that would feed and satisfy our need for revenge it would also feed their fire. A military tribunal would recognize him as a combatant, thus making him a martyr too.
A civil court makes him a common criminal no different than the slime in their gutters.

Absolutely not. Even fire ants have rights.

Once a terrorist is drained dry, kill him for your own protection.

 

[Chuz Life]

No.

The Fourteenth Amendment says "all persons" not all "citizens" shall be accorded due process of law.

Nice strawman, easily blown away.

I think you just took Misterman out of context,... read all his posts,... he has the same take on the 14th that you and I do.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

actually they couldn't care less as they don't fundamentally see a difference between US civilians and US combatants. you are attributing to them a distinction that we make and they do not. a military tribunal that keeps him under wraps and away from the spotlight, and results in his execution makes him a martyr. a civilian trial that allows him to publicly take the US to task, gain access to classified information, and drain us of hundreds of millions of dollars makes him a hero as well as a martyr. it also lets him still have a positive impact on AQ's strategic collections. it's not about vengeance, it's minimizing this guys' ability to still cause the death of innocent Muslim and American citizens.

there is a thread in the "war on terror" about the stupidity of pretending that war is a criminal matter. if you are as interested in this as I, i suggest we take it there?

Then one needs to read another book and let his destiny become unknown. Known terrorists captured simply disappear, never to be seen again.

Invent stories and circulate them about how they've recanted Islam and become missionaires in Africa or male prostitutes in San Francisco , or how they enjoy their new job cleaning out pig stalls in Vietnam.

But don't let any knowledge of what really happened to them escape.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

If you painted your house bright green and your neighbors asked you to change the color, you could say no. If they started throwing eggs at your car you could stick it out and hope they don't escalate their anger or you could change the color. If you decide to stick it out only to find more and more of your neighbors throwing eggs at your car and now your children, you could continue to stick it out or you could change the color.

We've decided to change the color because it's not really all that important or necessary.

Or, if you're man, you walk up to the egg thrower and beat the living **** out of him because he's both damaging your property and engaging in terrorist acts.

Funny that you failed to mention that option.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Fine, then. My standard fee is $150 an hour. I accept all forms of payment, including credit cards. Generally though I don't do research for free, especially over something so ridiculous.

I spent three years in law school studying the Constitution, took Constitutional Law classes, and have been teaching Con Law classes to Community College students since the 1990s. Not one has ever made the absurd claims you have, because there is not one case law that supports your view.

I have dared you to produce ANY law that supports your strange idea, and cannot help but notice that you refuse to do so.

And, in case you didn't notice, the premier case on the subject, from back in the 1800s, was already posted in this thread.

You're participating on a public forum expressing ideas that are questioned. You are expected to support you position to the best of your ability. If you're expressing professional opinions, you're expected to source those opinions.

When I provide engineering opinions, like on the lunacies of the 9-11 "truthers" or other airplane related subjects, I provide the basic calculations supporting what I say.

If you're going to pretend to be a lawyer you need to provide evidence that you is one, ie, support your claims.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I think you just took Misterman out of context,... read all his posts,... he has the same take on the 14th that you and I do.

Um....that's a possibility. If so, I apologize.

...

...

Yes, he used the phrase "by their logic". I stand corrected and do apologize.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Ok I seem to remember making this post.....ah yes there it is....



No one here has yet to prove that the Constitution protects unborn children.

What's more important is that no one has shown any part of the Constitution that denies the unborn person his rights under that Constitution.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I'm aware of that. My point was that the whole debate of the abortion issue essentially boils down to whether a fetus is a legal person and therefore deserving of the rights and protections given in the constitution. The courts may have ruled on it, but people are still arguing about it.

What is a legal person? As defined by the Constitution.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Amendment 14:

"...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."

As has been shown, the 14th amendment does not apply to fetus's. In order for it to then you must show that the fetus is a person in the way prescribed by Roe v Wade. This has not been done.

 

[Chuz Life]

What is a legal person? As defined by the Constitution.

It would be so nice if more people took the time to ask questions like this one and to consider the answers found.

As to the natural persons protected by the due process clause, these include all human beings regardless of race, color, or citizenship. 61

 

[Chuz Life]

As has been shown, the 14th amendment does not apply to fetus's. In order for it to then you must show that the fetus is a person in the way prescribed by Roe v Wade. This has not been done.

Roe v. Wade is an un-Constitutional ruling that amounts to the denial of rights and personhood of pre-birth children cloaked by and wrapped up in an overt act of 'age discrimination.'

It will be overturned.

 

[kerussll]

Amendment 14:

"...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."

Abortions are legal. They fit the process of the law.

 

[windovervocalcords]

Roe v. Wade is an un-Constitutional ruling that amounts to the denial of rights and personhood of pre-birth children cloaked by and wrapped up in an overt act of 'age discrimination.'

It will be overturned.

Roe won't be overturned anytime soon. IMO it will continue to be weakened, but not overturned :2wave:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Actually, the dispute is whether or not the fetus is a person in a single sense of the word. The legal sense.

Since it's clear, under existing statutes, that the unborn are persons....Peterson was convicted of two murders, not one, then there's no question that the unborn are persons.

Legal persons.

The flaw in the law is the inconsistency by which this fact is applied to protect the unborn. An unborn child is protected against murder by his father or any stranger because he's a person. That same unborn child, at the same developmental stage, is not protected against being murdered by his mother, because, as the left argues, he's not a person.

He can't both be a person and not be a person at the same time.

So he's a person and his Fourteenth Amendment protections should be recognized and implemented.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Abortions are legal. They fit the process of the law.

Since R v W was a court decision and not a legislative action, it's not the law.

Since there was no Constitutional justification for R v W (not to mention no scientific substantiation, either), it's not Constitutional, and hence illegal.