IS THIS A PERSON?

8/5/02 | jwalsh07

[jwalsh07]

AMENDMENT 14
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and 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.

GE 4D Image Of a Baby

[dead]

There’s a very good article on this very subject, from today’s Sydney Morning Herald:

Consuming our unborn is indefensible (Judeo-Christian ethics will save us)

[hellinahandcart]

This thread reminds me of a post I read on DUh. Some guy was totally bent out of shape over seeing this "anti-abortion" ad from GE claiming that a fetus was a baby. Said he hadn't slept for days because it was bothering him so much.

You mean, the ad where the expectant mommy and daddy (who look like a married couple that got pregnant on purpose) are looking at a three-D color image of their moving baby, with tears of joy streaming down their cheeks, while "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face" plays in the background? The one that doesn't mention the words "abortion" or "fetus" even once? THAT ad?

Wow, talk about projecting. If that commercial makes him SEE a baby and THINK he's watching an anti-abortion ad, it's probably his conscience talking.

[Zon]

If its not a person, just what the heck is it?

An appendage of a woman. The appendage lives and dies with the woman. Unlike a person that has been born and can exist after the woman that gave birth to it is dead. Many different appendages can be removed from a person and the person can still live. Teeth are the most common appendages that are removed wherein the person lives on. When a person dies all their appendages die with them.

Many appendages a woman has can be removed and be kept alive separate from the woman. For example, that's is a critical part of organ transplant procedure and requires the organ donor's consent. Consent to have an appendage removed. Consent is  mandatory when a living person donates one of their kidneys to be removed. The person donating the kidney does that with the expectation that they can live with one kidney. Likewise, consent is required to remove a person's tonsils, appendix, wart or fetus.

The most basic individual/human right is the right to one's own life. That life includes all the person's appendages. Due to cause and effect a woman cannot be an appendage of her fetus.  Thus the reason for the common-sense logic of saying "the woman's fetus", and not saying "the fetus's woman". ...Or "the woman's embryo" and not "the embryo's woman".

[jwalsh07]

An appendage of a woman.

Look, my first instinct is to ridicule this but I'm going to restrain myself. Appendages have the exact same DNA as the person they are appended to. Babies don't. Go back to the pro abort bulletin board, you can do better than this.

[Zon]

So what if the appendage has a different DNA, the appendage is still the property of the person that it is attached to. I have not stated my position on abortion. How about you address the appendage issue instead of labeling me.

[inquest]

Well, it certainly looks like a person to me. But since you quoted from the Constitution, I'm gathering that you're asking a very different question: Is he or she a legal person? The question centers around how the Constitution defines "person". Well, one way to answer that would be to look at this sentence, from Article I, Section 2: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

So, were unborn babies ever included in this tally of "Persons"? The answer to that question is the answer to yours.

[inquest]

Your question is beside the point. The Constitution simply says that no State should take away life, liberty, or property. It does not mention private actors. Murder laws and such are properly in the domain of the State governments.

Nonetheless, the 14th amendment prohibits states from denying to anyone the equal protection of the laws, so the question of legal personhood is still relevant.

[garv]

The conjoined twins that were just separated had a shared appendage, their skull. Before being separated was neither a person? Do conjoined twins that share appendages, but cannot be separated lack personhood?

[Admin Moderator]

Knock it off.

[Zon]

Is consent of the person required before removing the appendage? Yes. That acknowledges that the appendage is the property of the person whose consent is being sought. In the case of conjoined twins consent is required from both.

[iconoclast]

All pro-lifers should be willing to support all the children saved from abortion.

Isn't the inference crystal clear that we are?

[HanneyBean]

They want abortion illegal to save the fetus....but if the mother dies from a back alley abortion...so what.

In your scenario, the mother made a CHOICE to have an abortion. Legal abortion or back alley abortion, there is a chance that she will die from it. She is personally responsible for her actions. No gloating from me or any other pro-lifer- just a common-sense understanding of the consequences of your actions. You play, you pay.

[iconoclast]

If you claim anyone has a right to force someone else to provide for their life, you have denied the right of life, particularly to the one you will force to provide for another.

Your Grandmas's address wouldn't be an ice flow would it?

[iconoclast]

Splendid post.

[brewcrew]

Thanks. ;^D

[al_c]

Wow, talk about projecting. If that commercial makes him SEE a baby and THINK he's watching an anti-abortion ad, it's probably his conscience talking.

Exactly what I thought.

[al_c]

That's the voice of his conscience (Romans 2:15-16) telling him that what he sees *should* disturb him if he's pro-abortion. That disturbance may be the key to his salvation.

And what's the scripture that says that man shall not lay with man? The DUer in question needs that one too.

[MHGinTN]

I would second your #234 post and FF's splendid compilation ... I copied and pasted it at the end of the current story I'm working regarding stem cells, cloning, and abortion, as a reminder when my tired brain cries out to stop and not proceed to a finish.

[hope]

I don't have to speak for God, He has already spoken on the subject...I suggest you find out more of what He says...It will set you free or you can stay in bondage to
ignorance...Your choice.

[Snuffington]

An appendage of a woman.

That is medically absurd. But if you play with semantics long enough, you might fool some people.