Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

[Chuz Life]

Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

It is obvious and undeniable that our Nation's more than 130 State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE" laws define and regard a "child in the womb" as a "person" by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a "criminal act." It is also undeniable that the fetal Homicide Laws make exceptions to the laws to (for now) keep abortions "legal."

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

In my view, the Government has no such right, power or authority.

The Government can not acknowledge that YOU are a person in one set of circumstances but then DENY the fact that you are a "person" in any other set of circumstances.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

In my view, the Constitution does not allow for the Government or for Society to flip the switch back and forth, between whether any individual human beings or groups of human beings are to be legally / Constitutionally recognized as "persons" or not.

 

[Hossfly]

100% correct!

 

[Chuz Life]

100% correct!

Thanks Hoss.

 

[cnm]

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

The USSC says having it both ways is constitutional. And they get to decide.

 

[Chuz Life]

The USSC says having it both ways is constitutional. And they get to decide.

LINK?

I understand why you think that is the inference.

Can you provide a link where the Supreme Court actually makes THAT specific declaration?

EDITED TO ADD: Once that precedence has been established, how would it not reopen the door for all sorts of previously bad situations, like Slavery, again?

 

[progressive hunter]

Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

It is obvious and undeniable that our Nation's more than 130 State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE" laws define and regard a "child in the womb" as a "person" by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a "criminal act." It is also undeniable that the fetal Homicide Laws make exceptions to the laws to (for now) keep abortions "legal."

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

In my view, the Government has no such right, power or authority.

The Government can not acknowledge that YOU are a person in one set of circumstances but then DENY the fact that you are a "person" in any other set of circumstances.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

In my view, the Constitution does not allow for the Government or for Society to flip the switch back and forth, between whether any individual human beings or groups of human beings are to be legally / Constitutionally recognized as "persons" or not.

youre confusing the government with democrats and republicans,, those two only occupy the government as representatives,,piss poor ones up to now

and no they dont have that right,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

The USSC says having it both ways is constitutional. And they get to decide.

no they dont,,,

 

[Chuz Life]

youre confusing the government with democrats and republicans,, those two only occupy the government as representatives,,piss poor ones up to now

and no they dont have that right,,,

I'm not confused at all.
When I say "the Government," I am referring to "the Government" as it was created to be, by our Constitution. Not the government as it has been bastardized by the likes of those you have mentioned.

 

[progressive hunter]

youre confusing the government with democrats and republicans,, those two only occupy the government as representatives,,piss poor ones up to now

and no they dont have that right,,,

I'm not confused at all.
When I say "the Government," I am referring to "the Government" as it was created to be, by our Constitution. Not the government as it has been bastardized by the likes of those you have mentioned.

thats what I said,,,

 

[cnm]

Can you provide a link where the Supreme Court actually makes THAT specific declaration?

All legislation is deemed constitutional until the USSC rules otherwise. Therefore if legislation exists where a position is had both ways, it is deemed constitutional. The USSC gets to decide.

 

[cnm]

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

The USSC says having it both ways is constitutional. And they get to decide.

no they dont,,,

Yes they do.

 

[Chuz Life]

All legislation is deemed constitutional until the USSC rules otherwise. Therefore if legislation exists it is deemed constitutional.

Bull shit.

Using that logic, the ONLY persons who can challenge the Constitutionality of any given piece of legislation, would be the SCOTUS itself.

 

[progressive hunter]

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

The USSC says having it both ways is constitutional. And they get to decide.

no they dont,,,

Yes they do.

no they dont,,,
their job is to say whether a law is constitutional and thats it,,,

 

[luchitociencia]

Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

It is obvious and undeniable that our Nation's more than 130 State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE" laws define and regard a "child in the womb" as a "person" by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a "criminal act." It is also undeniable that the fetal Homicide Laws make exceptions to the laws to (for now) keep abortions "legal."

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

In my view, the Government has no such right, power or authority.

The Government can not acknowledge that YOU are a person in one set of circumstances but then DENY the fact that you are a "person" in any other set of circumstances.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

In my view, the Constitution does not allow for the Government or for Society to flip the switch back and forth, between whether any individual human beings or groups of human beings are to be legally / Constitutionally recognized as "persons" or not.

You are correct, the Constitution won't allow it.

Abortion was legalized as a desperate measure, never as a woman's right.

Even more, if people realize today the real and obscure intention behind the legalization of abortion, then they will understand that abortion was officially condoned in order to take the right of women to deliver children.

If two opposite rules exist in the legal system, this means one of them is correct and delivers safety, and the another is erroneous and delivers hazard. Abortion as "legal" is wrong and delivers fatality.

Also, from the biological point of view, abortion is unnatural.

 

[TNHarley]

No they don't. Inconsistency itself is unconstitutional.
I dont see how they even have the ability to "define" what "personhood" actually is in the first place.
A human is a human. A human being a fetus isnt objective

 

[Coyote]

The USSC says having it both ways is constitutional. And they get to decide.

LINK?

I understand why you think that is the inference.

Can you provide a link where the Supreme Court actually makes THAT specific declaration?

EDITED TO ADD: Once that precedence has been established, how would it not reopen the door for all sorts of previously bad situations, like Slavery, again?

Recognizing the rights of something that is inhabiting and growing in another person's body, as equal to that of the owner of that body would in itself open the door to all sorts of bad situations.

 

[progressive hunter]

The USSC says having it both ways is constitutional. And they get to decide.

LINK?

I understand why you think that is the inference.

Can you provide a link where the Supreme Court actually makes THAT specific declaration?

EDITED TO ADD: Once that precedence has been established, how would it not reopen the door for all sorts of previously bad situations, like Slavery, again?

Recognizing the rights of something that is inhabiting and growing in another person's body, as equal to that of the owner of that body would in itself open the door to all sorts of bad situations.

name one???

 

[Chuz Life]

Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

It is obvious and undeniable that our Nation's more than 130 State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE" laws define and regard a "child in the womb" as a "person" by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a "criminal act." It is also undeniable that the fetal Homicide Laws make exceptions to the laws to (for now) keep abortions "legal."

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

In my view, the Government has no such right, power or authority.

The Government can not acknowledge that YOU are a person in one set of circumstances but then DENY the fact that you are a "person" in any other set of circumstances.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

In my view, the Constitution does not allow for the Government or for Society to flip the switch back and forth, between whether any individual human beings or groups of human beings are to be legally / Constitutionally recognized as "persons" or not.

You are correct, the Constitution won't allow it.

Abortion was legalized as a desperate measure, never as a woman's right.

Even more, if people realize today the real and obscure intention behind the legalization of abortion, then they will understand that abortion was officially condoned in order to take the right of women to deliver children.

If two opposite rules exist in the legal system, this means one of them is correct and delivers safety, and the another is erroneous and delivers hazard. Abortion as "legal" is wrong and delivers fatality.

Also, from the biological point of view, abortion is unnatural.

While I appreciate your views on abortion. This thread is specifically about whether or not the government can CONSTITUTIONALLY recognize a himan being in one set of circumstances ASa person and then DENY that human being is a person in any or all other circumstances.

It goes far beyond abortion.

 

[cnm]

Bull shit.

Using that logic, the ONLY persons who can challenge the Constitutionality of any given piece of legislation, would be the SCOTUS itself.

No, the USSC is the ultimate ruler on the constitutionality of any given piece of legislation.

I'm not even a Yank and I know this.

 

[Chuz Life]

Bull shit.

Using that logic, the ONLY persons who can challenge the Constitutionality of any given piece of legislation, would be the SCOTUS itself.

No, the USSC is the ultimate ruler on the constitutionality of any given piece of legislation.

I'm not even a Yank and I know this.

Your laxy minded appeal to authority is noted.

Tell me something, we todd. . .is the Supreme Court infallible?