View Full Version : Does the 14th amendment specify what qualifies for legal personhood?
WritingANovel
2008-10-28, 19:32
Hi. I have been participating in a thread on another forum here: http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=255026
Basically, this guy (Bob K) says that the 14th amendment specifies someone has to be born first in order to have access to due process/equal protection of the law, whereas my position is that the 14th amendment only specifies the requirement for US citizenship, and that it doesn't specify what qualifies for legal personhood.
So, what is your thought on/interpretation of the 14th amendment? Do you think that according it unborn fetuses can be aborted at will, due to not having been born and therefore not protected by the US laws?
I am of the position that unborn fetuses, while they might not be born yet, are live humans nevertheless. Even though they cannot qualify for US citizenship, they however qualify for personhood, and as persons, they should be granted the right of life.
Regards,
WAN
Amendment XIV
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.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
It would seem that the key word is 'born'.
WritingANovel
2008-10-28, 20:52
It would seem that the key word is 'born'.
Yes. One would have to be born to be consider a US citizen. However the amendment itself does not specify/define what constitutes legal personhood. In other words, the article didn't say you have to be born to be considered a person in the eyes of law.
Well that could be an argument since the SCOTUS has ruled that the persons who are not citizens imprisoned at Gitmo have the right to trial afforded to them through courts from the writ of habeaus corpus.
But one would be hard pressed to find anywhere that a fetus is indeed a person. But then that would seem to be a valid offense to overturn the law allowing abortions as violating the XIV Amendment. And since the pro-life Bush Administration has not tried to do that, I would think that it would fail in even today's SCOTUS>
WritingANovel
2008-10-28, 21:10
Well that could be an argument since the SCOTUS has ruled that the persons who are not citizens imprisoned at Gitmo have the right to trial afforded to them through courts from the writ of habeaus corpus.
But one would be hard pressed to find anywhere that a fetus is indeed a person. But then that would seem to be a valid offense to overturn the law allowing abortions as violating the XIV Amendment. And since the pro-life Bush Administration has not tried to do that, I would think that it would fail in even today's SCOTUS>
But a fetus is a live human, therefore it's a person.
But a fetus is a live human, therefore it's a person.
And abortion (as practiced legally) is a legal procedure.
WritingANovel
2008-10-28, 21:29
And abortion (as practiced legally) is a legal procedure.
But my point is it shouldn't be legal, since killing a person is illegal.
But my point is it shouldn't be legal, since killing a person is illegal.
Well you really do not have much say in the matter unless you are one of the persons that are the reason for the being of the fetus. But if you could get the SCOTUS to rule as you think, then the fetus and or the aborting of, would be removed as a political gambit from the political electoral process.
WritingANovel
2008-10-28, 21:42
Well you really do not have much say in the matter unless you are one of the persons that are the reason for the being of the fetus. But if you could get the SCOTUS to rule as you think, then the fetus and or the aborting of, would be removed as a political gambit from the political electoral process.
Beg to differ. I don't have to be one of the parents of the fetus to have an opinion on this matter. We are dealing with live humans being killed off here. I believe any conscientious person should have a say in this matter.
Beg to differ. I don't have to be one of the parents of the fetus to have an opinion on this matter. We are dealing with live humans being killed off here. I believe any conscientious person should have a say in this matter.
I apologize if I were not clear. You do of course have a say and an opinion in the matter. But it seems that your say about the legality of the fetus as a person or citizen is limited at best.
Now if you could go find a person that was aborted and that lived through thr process - and there are persons that fit that criteria - then you could maybe have them prosecute the person or person's for attempted murder (if the statute of limitation still allows for prosecuting). And then maybe the SCOTUS would be forced to rule in the matter of the fetus being a person whose rights under the XIV amendment was violated.
WritingANovel
2008-10-28, 21:55
I apologize if I were not clear. You do of course have a say and an opinion in the matter. But it seems that your say about the legality of the fetus as a person or citizen is limited at best.
Now if you could go find a person that was aborted and that lived through thr process - and there are persons that fit that criteria - then you could maybe have them prosecute the person or person's for attempted murder (if the statute of limitation still allows for prosecuting). And then maybe the SCOTUS would be forced to rule in the matter of the fetus being a person whose rights under the XIV amendment was violated.
I see I see.
I am not arguing from a legal point of view in the sense that I want to prosecute those who underwent abortion, but rather, I am attempting to argue from a moral/philosophical point of view.
I see I see.
I am not arguing from a legal point of view in the sense that I want to prosecute those who underwent abortion, but rather, I am attempting to argue from a moral/philosophical point of view.
It all goes back to the constitution to me though.
But try this tact on your friend.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," it says.
Important words all. But I want you to focus right now on those to whom this document applies. Who are the subjects and beneficiaries of the Constitution, as stated clearly in the preamble?
The answer? "… to ourselves and our posterity. …"
The word "ourselves" in this context refers to those men who wrote it -- and to their generation of Americans.
"Posterity," which literally means "descendants" or all succeeding generations, refers, in this context, to all those Americans yet unborn.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22817
WritingANovel
2008-10-28, 22:20
It all goes back to the constitution to me though.
But try this tact on your friend.
Holy shit, very nicely done, my friend.
Those unborn....omfg the pro-abortion camp can all stfu now.
WritingANovel
2008-10-28, 22:24
Also, does this mean you are actually pro-life?
Also, omfg where did you find treasure like this? Please share with me your research skills!
I am Pro-life in my personal view. But as a male I do not think it is the choice of others what a woman does with her own body.
I just try to collect knowledge. Sometimes I can call it back. How and when I or what was happening at the time that I stumble upon it is not important to me.
It is a vast world and I just try to live in it.
WritingANovel
2008-10-29, 00:49
I am Pro-life in my personal view. But as a male I do not think it is the choice of others what a woman does with her own body.
I just try to collect knowledge. Sometimes I can call it back. How and when I or what was happening at the time that I stumble upon it is not important to me.
It is a vast world and I just try to live in it.
While I agree with you that women have a right to do with their bodies what they want, I must say that fetuses have a right to life.
So it boils down to which right should be important, right to do what one wants with one's body, or the right to life.
Mötleÿ Crüe
2008-10-29, 01:31
It's meant to be open to discussion, so ide say you have a shot.
While I agree with you that women have a right to do with their bodies what they want, I must say that fetuses have a right to life.
So it boils down to which right should be important, right to do what one wants with one's body, or the right to life.
So contraceptives that would have prevented the fetus from attaining life -- should they be banned?
Even the courts seem to be at a loss to understand how to classify the standing of a fetus.
Look at the quandry that the Texas court has decided about the fetuses.
You should go to the site and read this case. The irony is that the Doctor told her she was too far along to get an abortion. But actually he as mistaken and she could have had the surgery. And then there is the irony that if she had had the abortion the fetuses would not be classified as murder victims. But since they died at the hands of the father, the courts ruled that it was murder.
There is much more at the site. I just pasted the first part.
Texas Man Receives A Life Sentence for the Murder of his Unborn Twins: When Feticide is a Capital Crime
By SHERRY F. COLB
Tuesday, Feb. 06, 2007
Last month, a Texas Court of Appeals upheld the conviction and life sentence of a man for killing his two unborn children. The gestational age of the fetuses in question was approximately four months, and the defendant - Gerardo Flores - was found guilty of killing them by stepping on his pregnant girlfriend's abdomen several times during the week prior to her resulting miscarriage.
The prosecution proceeded on the basis of a Texas statute under which the class of potential capital murder victims includes unborn human beings from the moment of conception. The case thus raises the important question of how the law ought to treat assaults on pregnant women that deliberately bring about the loss of their pregnancies.
Click here to find out more!
The Facts
At the time of the attacks in question, the surviving victim, E.B., was 16 years old and pregnant with twins. Her live-in boyfriend, Gerardo Flores, was 18 years old and evidently had a history of physically abusing his girlfriend. At approximately four months' gestation, E.B. reportedly decided that she wanted an abortion. Her obstetrician/gynecologist, however, informed her - incorrectly - that the time during which E.B. could legally terminate her pregnancy had passed.
After hearing this news, E.B. reportedly asked Flores to step on her abdomen to induce a miscarriage. She had admittedly tried punching herself in the stomach, but this approach had failed to accomplish her objective. Reports say that after some initial reluctance, Flores acceded to his girlfriend's requests, and a miscarriage followed.
Though Flores acknowledged using physical violence against his girlfriend, he claimed that he generally would beat her on the arms. It was only her begging him to terminate her pregnancy, he said, that led him to press his full weight onto her abdomen.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20070206.html
WritingANovel
2008-10-29, 01:57
So contraceptives that would have prevented the fetus from attaining life -- should they be banned?
Contraceptives do not prevent fetus from attaining life, because there is no fetus to speak of. Contraceptives stop eggs and sperm from meeting, which is before life even begins.
Contraceptives do not prevent fetus from attaining life, because there is no fetus to speak of. Contraceptives stop eggs and sperm from meeting, which is before life even begins.
Some religions think otherwise. Notably the Roman Catholic Church, This church prohibits and has ruled equally evil the practice of using contraception, abortion, masturbation, and voluntary sterilization by vasectomy and tubal ligation.
WritingANovel
2008-10-29, 02:14
Some religions think otherwise. Notably the Roman Catholic Church, This church prohibits and has ruled equally evil the practice of using contraception, abortion, masturbation, and voluntary sterilization by vasectomy and tubal ligation.
Some of the religious people can be nuts. In any event, I am only interested in abortion being illegal. I don't care about contraceptives.
Mötleÿ Crüe
2008-10-29, 02:18
Some of the religious people can be nuts. In any event, I am only interested in abortion being illegal. I don't care about contraceptives.
Your party won't be getting my vote.
WritingANovel
2008-10-29, 02:21
Your party won't be getting my vote.
I have a reason for abortion being illegal. Its because abortion is the killing of a live human.
Do you support the killing of a live human?
Mötleÿ Crüe
2008-10-29, 02:33
I have a reason for abortion being illegal. Its because abortion is the killing of a live human.
Do you support the killing of a live human?
Not my kid.
But for the most part, there are enough retards around as it is. You should have to pass an aptitude test to be able to keep your baby, and at that, your life aswell.
terriblone15
2008-10-29, 02:47
Dude, if you have the ability to off yourself then you are a live perosn, how much more non-sensical can you get man.