Abortion

[palerider]

Isn't it interesting that you are finding it entirely impossible to find words in the constitution that mean what you are claiming the constitution says? What does that tell you?

 

[numinus]

Sorry, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. The 14th amendment neither describes, nor defines what is a person. It states that persons born here are citizens and describes the difference between citizens and non citizens then the language changes from citizens to persons who are human beings but not citizens.



The words prove my point. Sorry you have thus far been able to understand them. Let me attempt to help you one more time.

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.

Clearly, this sentence describes who is a citizen of the US and that they are firstly a citizen of the US and secondarily a citizen of the state in which they reside as evidenced by the state coming second to the US in the sentence. Legal writing is what it is. Had the writers put the state first within the sentence and then the US, they would have been saying that we are primarily citizens of our state and secondarily citizens of the US.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

This clause reinforces and states explicitly the meaning of the first sentence. That is, we are primarily citizens of the US and secondarily citizens of the state we reside in and no state law can deny you the rights that you have as a citizen of the US.

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.


Note that we are no longer talking about citizens here and there is a specific reason for that. This is known as the equal protection clause and as I pointed out, it has been tested and proven to mean that one need not be a citizen in the US in order to expect that one will get due process before one is denied the right to life, liberty, or property.

NO.

The meaning of the ammendment comes form the idea that the POWER OF THE STATE TO GOVERN COMES FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. The basic standard, therefore, is CONSENT, given either FREELY OR TACITLY. Tacit consent may be inferred in women, slaves, passers-through, foreigners, mentally incapable individuals and children BUT NOT to the unborn.

The standard is clear and does not require anyone to refer to a legal dictionary.

I am still waiting for you to point out where the 14th amendment describes what is a person and who is and who is not a person. The fact that you are relying on the majority decision of roe but are unable to find anything within the constitution that says what they suggest should be sinking in by now. Could it be that you are learning that the roe decision was bogus and not founded on anything that can be found in the constitution?

I have clearly pointed it out.

Persons within the contemplation and meaning of the 14th ammendment are those deemed to have given FREE OR TACIT CONSENT.

There is absolutely no need to expound on punctuation.

 

[numinus]

If they are human beings, my legal dictionary, and every one that I have been able to find says that they are persons. Is it correct?

Of course they are. It is already established, (no thanks to your legal dictionary) that post-natal human beings are persons -- even within the meaning of the 14th ammendment.

And yet, euthanasia is not legal here because we can not bodily attack and kill a human being unless he or she has had due process. We can let a person die, but we can not kill them. There is a difference. If there were not, euthanasia would be acceptable.

It is the SAME. When someone withholds something that is necessary for a person's life, you are in fact, murdering that person. And the situation is aggravated when you co-opt a medical practioner against his oath.

There is no distinction between acts of commission or ommission in this case -- only WILLFUL INTENT.

No actual answer huh?

You do not think an EXPLICIT statement is an answer?

Still waiting for you to show me the word privacy in the constitution, much less a right to it, particularly in the 14th amendment. Any "right" to privacy is made up from whole cloth.

Try "...that can be deemed 'fundamental' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty'...". Is it possible to find WRITTEN in the constitution a concept that is IMPLICIT?

But I forget, you are completely incompetent in discerning the meaning of philosophical ideas. Not to mention your penchant for sending other's to fool's errands.

 

[numinus]

Isn't it interesting that you are finding it entirely impossible to find words in the constitution that mean what you are claiming the constitution says? What does that tell you?

LOL.

I pity you if you can't discern the meaning in the text. Ultimately, the text is irrelevant without its intended meaning.

 

[Coyote]

It is the SAME. When someone withholds something that is necessary for a person's life, you are in fact, murdering that person. And the situation is aggravated when you co-opt a medical practioner against his oath.

Would that apply in a scenario where a kidney transplant would save someone's life and a person with two functioning healthy kidneys and a perfect match refused to donate?

 

[palerider]

NO.

The meaning of the ammendment comes form the idea that the POWER OF THE STATE TO GOVERN COMES FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. The basic standard, therefore, is CONSENT, given either FREELY OR TACITLY. Tacit consent may be inferred in women, slaves, passers-through, foreigners, mentally incapable individuals and children BUT NOT to the unborn.[/quiote]

You keep saying that, but that isn't what the words say. Show me where it says what you say it means.

The standard is clear and does not require anyone to refer to a legal dictionary.

The words are clear. And what the words say is clear. The meaning that you attatch to those words is apparently made of whole cloth as it is not what the words say at all.

Persons within the contemplation and meaning of the 14th ammendment are those deemed to have given FREE OR TACIT CONSENT.

Except that there is no such meaning to be extracted from the words of the 14th amendment. Any such meaning is a fabrication.

 

[palerider]

It is the SAME. When someone withholds something that is necessary for a person's life, you are in fact, murdering that person. And the situation is aggravated when you co-opt a medical practioner against his oath.

No. It is not the same. If I let you die but have not caused the condition which is killing you it is not the same as if I am causing the condition that is killing you and continue causing it until you die. Interesting that you view thes two things as the same but are unable to see that persons and human beings are the same.

There is no distinction between acts of commission or ommission in this case -- only WILLFUL INTENT.

Sorry, but there is and the issue has nothing at all to do with personhood.

Try "...that can be deemed 'fundamental' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty'...". Is it possible to find WRITTEN in the constitution a concept that is IMPLICIT?

Implicit. Implied. Sorry, but an "implied" right isn't good enough if said right is being used to deny the very right to live from another.

But I forget, you are completely incompetent in discerning the meaning of philosophical ideas. Not to mention your penchant for sending other's to fool's errands.

Once again, right off the bat you admitted that in a court of law (where roe will eventually be overturned) that you would not accept having philosophical slight of hand entered into evidence against you. Words mean what they mean and to date, you have not shown me any words in the constitution that mean what either you, or the kangaroo court that decided roe claim that they mean. Hence, the unabated fight over the constitutionality of roe ever since, and if you are going to claim that it is constitutional because the supreme court said it is, then you may as well try and argue that the pope is infallable.

 

[palerider]

LOL.

I pity you if you can't discern the meaning in the text. Ultimately, the text is irrelevant without its intended meaning.

The words say what they say and mean what they mean. The meaning that you imply that they have simply is not to be found within the text. The writers of the constitution said what they meant and used words and punctuation with amazing dexterity. When one looks at a sentence that has a clear meaning and then claims that it means something entirely different, one can only be said to be a liar.

These words:

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.

Say what they say and mean what they mean. There are no words contained within this statement that could even remotely be construed to define what is a person and what isn't a person. If educated men intended to define what is and isn't a person, do you actually (step away from your silly stance for a moment) believe that these words are the ones they would have chosen?

 

[palerider]

Would that apply in a scenario where a kidney transplant would save someone's life and a person with two functioning healthy kidneys and a perfect match refused to donate?

Of course it isn't the same and don't expect a rational answer. Letting a person who is too sick or injured to reasonably be expected to recover die is a long walk and a far cry from deliberately killing someone who is healthy.

You end up being asked this sort of question when you try to apply meanings to words that they don't actually have.

 

[numinus]

Would that apply in a scenario where a kidney transplant would save someone's life and a person with two functioning healthy kidneys and a perfect match refused to donate?

I repeat - there is no distinction between an act of commission and an act of omission - ONLY WILLFUL INTENT.

Is the intent to kill implied in the refusal to give a kidney? If it is, then it is murder.

 

[numinus]

Of course it isn't the same and don't expect a rational answer. Letting a person who is too sick or injured to reasonably be expected to recover die is a long walk and a far cry from deliberately killing someone who is healthy.

You end up being asked this sort of question when you try to apply meanings to words that they don't actually have.

The only thing irrational around here is your argument.

Abortion and 'pulling the plug' on comatose individuals are the SAME in that the INTENT TO KILL is implied.

The thing about extending personhood to conception is that it also EXTENDS TO DEATH.

Nobody needs an editorial around here, so you might as well keep them to yourself and start debating.

 

[numinus]

No. It is not the same. If I let you die but have not caused the condition which is killing you it is not the same as if I am causing the condition that is killing you and continue causing it until you die. Interesting that you view thes two things as the same but are unable to see that persons and human beings are the same.

I've had just about enough of your dishonesty.

How is extracting the fetus from a woman's womb different from pulling the plug, eh?

Both CANNOT survive without life support.

Both actions have WILLFUL INTENT TO KILL.

Both actions are done with nothing more than CONVENIENCE as their ends.

If you are merely letting an infirm individual die, then why can't you let him die in life-support, eh?

That you ascribe personhood to one and not the other proves that your idea is entirely dependent on the CIRCUMSTANCE one finds a human being in.

Sorry, but there is and the issue has nothing at all to do with personhood.

You might as well feel sorry for yourself since the difference rests entirely in your own dishonest mind.

Implicit. Implied. Sorry, but an "implied" right isn't good enough if said right is being used to deny the very right to live from another.

Who says? Your legal dictionary?

Implicit or explicit -- it is a CONCEPT BORN OF ORDERED LIBERTY.

Which goes back to the question of a right to live - hence PERSONHOOD.

Once again, right off the bat you admitted that in a court of law (where roe will eventually be overturned) that you would not accept having philosophical slight of hand entered into evidence against you. Words mean what they mean and to date, you have not shown me any words in the constitution that mean what either you, or the kangaroo court that decided roe claim that they mean. Hence, the unabated fight over the constitutionality of roe ever since, and if you are going to claim that it is constitutional because the supreme court said it is, then you may as well try and argue that the pope is infallable.

slight

5. of little substance or strength.

sleight

1. skill; dexterity.
2. an artifice; stratagem.
3. cunning; craft.

One would imagine that someone as fastidious with punctuation would know the difference. Unless, of course, your punctuation argument is an entirely contrived affair.

Other than that, there is no need to dignify further any of your editorials -- except perhaps to manifest my disdain for it.

 

[palerider]

The only thing irrational around here is your argument.

Look whose talking. You who believes words mean other than what they explicitly say.

Abortion and 'pulling the plug' on comatose individuals are the SAME in that the INTENT TO KILL is implied.

Not at all since one is healthy and growing and the other is sick and dying. If you let nature take its course, one will continue to grow and the other will die. There is nothing natural about abortion. It is deliberately killing a growing, healthy individual.

Again, the weakness of your argument is evident in that you find it necessary to compare perfectly healthy human beings to those who are sick and dying.

The thing about extending personhood to conception is that it also EXTENDS TO DEATH.

You have a right to live. You have no right to have endless amounts of money spent upon treating you if such treatment can not reasonably be expected to see you recover. In fact, you have no right to any healthcare at all. There is a distinct difference between being denied a basic human right and being denied a commodity.

 

[Coyote]

I repeat - there is no distinction between an act of commission and an act of omission - ONLY WILLFUL INTENT.

Is the intent to kill implied in the refusal to give a kidney? If it is, then it is murder.

Ok...intent is what matters. That makes sense...but it still seems murky. For example - you know you could save a life but you choose not to - ie you don't want to give up a kidney, you don't want the inconvenience of surgery or recovery. How is intent measured here?


Let me ask another question..

The purpose of the contraceptive pill for women is to prevent conception. The primary method is by preventing ovulation. The secondary method is by affecting the sperms motility I think. The final method, in the rare case that the others's fail is by preventing implantation of the fertilized egg.

In this case...intent seems rather mixed. How would you view it?


I'm not trying to be smartass btw - I find this seriously intriguing.

 

[numinus]

You keep saying that, but that isn't what the words say. Show me where it says what you say it means.

Did you really think that the ideas embodied in the constitution were invented by its framers?

The idea of the natural rights of man? The idea that the state's power to govern comes from the consent of the governed? The separate and co-equal branches of government and their functions? Invented?

They derive from a particular political school of thought known as MODERN CONSTITUTIONALISM which has its roots in europe.

If you can close your legal dictionary long enough so that it wouldn't interfere with your education, then you might actually learn something from this experience.

The words are clear. And what the words say is clear. The meaning that you attatch to those words is apparently made of whole cloth as it is not what the words say at all.

The words are clear such that anyone can discern its unmistakable roots from john locke's 2nd treatise on civil government. Save your legal dictionary for novice law students.

Except that there is no such meaning to be extracted from the words of the 14th amendment. Any such meaning is a fabrication.

That is the meaning of 'persons' as used in the constitution -- not what your legal dictionary says.

It appears that your 'tripod' argument has reached its inevitable demise since it is based on NOTHING MORE than an entry in a legal dictionary.

So sad.