Abortion and the 14th Amendment - Just Who are Persons?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Surprisingly, discussions about abortion and the 14th Amendment may have a common thread: Just who are "persons"for the purpose of applying their provisions? According to current (mis)interpretation of the 14th Amendment, U.S. Congressional districts are apportioned according to the number of persons, rather than citizens, living in each district. (This means that the actual numbers of legal voters can vary widely between districts, thereby creating additional opportunities for gerrymandering.)

Similarly, discussions about abortion often involve the issue of when a fetus becomes a "person" with legal rights. This distinction seems analogous to that between illegal aliens and citizens in the U.S. Although these aliens and fetuses are "undocumented," there is no question of their existence and residence in this country. The only thing standing between them and full legal recognition is the necessary paperwork; either a "green card" or a U.S. birth certificate.

However, this analogy fails when it comes to government benefits. While illegal aliens are entitled to food, shelter and medical care, many fetuses are deprived of the same. Why is that? Aren't they both persons?

Women.

 

[justaschmuck9]

Of course they are, and leftist screwballs who claim fetuses are not persons, are only interested in using abortion as a way of guaranteeing their ability to be sexually free, regardless of the ramifications, and who gets hurt (killed).

sad things is, they will hurt themselves by getting an abortion

I have yet to meet the woman who does not have some regret over her abortion. And some really, really regret it and suffer from chronic Post Abortion Syndrome.

sick world we live in

 

[justaschmuck9]

Republicans are NOT pro-life — they’re pro FORCED-BIRTH.

oh, so Republicans put a gun to couples' heads and force them to have sex and create a child?

sick

 

[g5000]

What I'm questioning is when do independent people have a right to touch one another, let alone gestate in one another without consent?

When a woman...excuse me...“people with a capacity for pregnancy"...have sex without birth control, they are giving their consent to a person to gestate in them.

 

[Curried Goats]

When a woman...excuse me...“people with a capacity for pregnancy"...have sex without birth control, they are giving their consent to a person to gestate in them.

That's the thing about consent you deplorable bastard, it can be rescinded at any time. When will you mutants learn that no means no?

 

[g5000]

That's the thing about consent you deplorable bastard, it can be rescinded at any time. When will you mutants learn that no means no?

You cannot rescind your consent when a life is now at stake.

Sorry, killer.

 

[justaschmuck9]

That's the thing about consent you deplorable bastard, it can be rescinded at any time. When will you mutants learn that no means no?

what the..?

Oh, so consent can be rescinded Re just anything? sounds logical

well, what if i were to rescind YOUR right to be born?

can I do that? Could a law be passed that if a person is not liked by someone or the person's politics aren't liked, we can do a retroactive abortion on him?

that's where your "logic" leads

and if you answer Yes to that should-be-rhetorical question (highlighted)

how utterly Democrat of you

 

[Curried Goats]

You cannot rescind your consent when a life is now at stake.

Sorry, killer.

Why not? At what point does a woman lose her right to rescind consent and when does consent ever have to be all or nothing? If you consent to sex does that mean you have to consent to anal sex? If you've already started having sex does the woman not have a right to change her mind? Expanding on the reasoning that one, a woman has a right to consent to some sex while not consenting to all sex (the example of anal sex), and two, that consent can be revoked at any point, what's to stop women seeking abortions from claiming that they agreed to sex unprotected sex but not to their partners ejaculating inside them, therefore any resulting pregnancy would be non-consensual.

 

[Curried Goats]

what the..?

Oh, so consent can be rescinded Re just anything? sounds logical

well, what if i were to rescind YOUR right to be born?

can I do that? Could a law be passed that if a person is not liked by someone or the person's politics aren't liked, we can do a retroactive abortion on him?

that's where your "logic" leads

and if you answer Yes to that should-be-rhetorical question (highlighted)

how utterly Democrat of you

I'm already born, how would you rescind my right to be born? I don't think you quite understand how logic works.

 

[g5000]

Why not? At what point does a woman lose her right to rescind consent and when does consent ever have to be all or nothing? If you consent to sex does that mean you have to consent to anal sex? If you've already started having sex does the woman not have a right to change her mind? Expanding on the reasoning that one, a woman has a right to consent to some sex while not consenting to all sex (the example of anal sex), and two, that consent can be revoked at any point, what's to stop women seeking abortions from claiming that they agreed to sex unprotected sex but not to their partners ejaculating inside them, therefore any resulting pregnancy would be non-consensual.

I'm sorry. Your word salad does not take away from the fact a human life is at stake and cannot be extinguished just because it is inconvenient.

There are a lot of people I find inconvenient. That does not give me the right to kill them.

And if you are so stupid as to not know you can get pregnant when you have sex without birth control, I don't know what else to say, honestly. But you have to live with the consequences of your actions.

 

[Curried Goats]

I'm sorry. Your word salad does not take away from the fact a human life is at stake and cannot be extinguished just because it is inconvenient.

No word salad. All very easy to follow logic and reason regarding consent. You on the other hand are making a purely emotional plee. I'm not questioning whether or not a human life is at stake, in fact I'll even concede to you that it is, but again, when does that ever give anyone the right to physically force themselves on another human being? Does a starving man have a right to assault you for the contents of your fridge? Does a man in need of a transplant have a right to drug you and leave you in an ice bath missing a kidney?

There are a lot of people I find inconvenient. That does not give me the right to kill them.

If you can't survive without a kidney that doesn't give you a right to mine, that has nothing to do with you being inconvenient, it has to do with each of us having a right to consent about what happens to our bodies.

And if you are so stupid as to not know you can get pregnant when you have sex without birth control, I don't know what else to say, honestly. But you have to live with the consequences of your actions.

That's just a threat of force not an argument based in reason.

 

[protectionist]

If you can't survive without a kidney that doesn't give you a right to mine, that has nothing to do with you being inconvenient, it has to do with each of us having a right to consent about what happens to our bodies.

But a woman does NOT have a right to do anything about her body, because in getting an abortion, she will be killing another person. Interesting how Democrats think only about the pregnant woman, and conveniently skip right past the life of the fetus.

 

[Curried Goats]

But a woman does NOT have a right to do anything about her body, because in getting an abortion, she will be killing another person. Interesting how Democrats think only about the pregnant woman, and conveniently skip right past the life of the fetus.

That person is dying because they are incapable of living outside the womb. That's no different than me not giving you one of my kidneys and letting you die.

 

[protectionist]

That person is dying because they are incapable of living outside the womb. That's no different than me not giving you one of my kidneys and letting you die.

What is this jibberish? Nobody is "dying". The thread is talking about healthy women with healthy fetuses. And it has nothing at all to do with kidneys, or whatever else you're babbling about.

If only liberals could speak English.

 

[protectionist]

No they didn't. The consented to sex not to pregnancy. If they consented to pregnancy you wouldn't need the force of law to compel them into maintaining one.

Consenting to sex IS consenting to pregnancy. They are linked to each other.

And whether they consent or not, you DO need the force of law to compel them into maintaining one, because many of them are low-life, and degenerate, and murderous enough to not maintain it.

 

[protectionist]

No it's not. Biology and nature doesn't care if a woman aborts her baby, you do.

Yes it is. Consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy, because the possibility of a pregnancy is always there.

 

[cnm]

If they are independent persons recognize that our legal system doesn't allow another person to put their hands on another person without their consent, let alone gestate inside someone without their consent.

Their continued assent...

 

[protectionist]

Sorry you hate how humans have functioned for thousands of years, I doubt you change anything.

Yes, humans have been killing other humans for thousands of years, but why be "sorry" about hating that ?

 

[cnm]

Yes it is. Consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy, because the possibility of a pregnancy is always there.

One can see how advanced is sex ed in the US. Therefore, consenting to sex is consenting to STDs. Yeah, right.

 

[protectionist]

Not a dodge dipshit. It's just a fact. Biology and nature are perfectly fine with abortions. In fact abortions happen naturally all the time. It's you that has a problem with abortion, not nature.

Yes, I have a problem with it as I have a problem with murder of human beings, as do all people who are not degenerate, low-life, murderers. And your little"nature" ploy is nothing more than meaningless babble.