- Banned
- #61
The death penalty is not defined per state by the Federal government, due process for such cases is defined in State constitutions.
And it is quite relevant to this discussion.
For your argument is two fold in it's insidiousness.
1) You argue that only the federal government should have authority over homicide, thus further eroding states rights. Which is not constitutional, see the Tenth.
2) You argue instead of hard evidence that philosophy, semantics, or worse of all - opinion, should define whom is a human being. Which is in no way reasonable, it is quite akin to making a religious argument. More so, you are either unwittingly legitimizing or subversively shilling the very religious concept that those whom profit from baby butchering are shifting to as their primary distraction from the argument.
The baby haters generally no longer deny that it is a living human baby in question, the science is irrefutable. Instead they, and you, are shifting into the semantic bullshit of "personhood". They knew they lost the factual debate a long time ago, that is why they keep it in the subjective realm of philosophy and religion.
Glad we agree, a baby is a human being. I just am curious as to why you are stooping to their level.
Federally, the term "person" or personhood is not equivalent to "human being" as defined in many states.
See Roe V Wade:
The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses,
[157]
for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [Footnote 51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [Footnote 52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [Footnote 53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
So you see that chickenshit Blackmun had no interest in facts, it was all about the same semantic game you are playing. Ignore the obvious, play games, then profit from dead babies.
By arguing semantics it is quite obvious Texas threw the game, so to speak. Roe V Wade was a courtroom drama full of actors. You are not onto any new concept here, it has already played out a long time ago. It lost then and it will lose again, by design.
And if you really think that the whole "personhood" argument is strictly legal (which isn't exactly science), perhaps you simply aren't aware of how stone age the concept is?
Sorry for the wiki link, it is relevant to the argument:
"The beginning of human personhood is a concept long debated by religion and philosophy."
Personhood - Wikipedia
Objective Facts:
Homicide is the jurisdiction of States
Abortion is homicide
(The term homicide is not to be confused with murder. Homicide indicates simply the fact that a human was killed by another human. Incidents of homicide typically warrant an investigation by authorities acting under State law to determine if it was murder or not.)
Subjective opinion:
Philosophy & Religion
Personhood
Last edited:
