Political Crossfire Forums

[TheCaliforniaLife]

14th Amendment of the US Constitution wrote: Section. 1. 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.

Many pro-choicers interpret this amendment incorrectly. I am sure you have all heard a pro-choicer say this "The 14th Amendment says born. A fetus is not born so it does not have rights." This is completely fallacious. I will explain.

After the Civil war, the government wanted to ensure the rights of black people. The government wrote the Civil Rights act of 1866. In order to ensure the rights of black people, they decided to write the 14th Amendment. This way, the Civil Rights act of 1866 wouldn't be overruled in the future by a simple majority. The 1st clause of the 14th amendment explicitly states the current legislation before 1866. That is that if you were born or naturalized on United States soil, you were a citizen. That is all this clause states. The 3rd clause in this amendment is where they add in the part to protect blacks. Since black people were not citizens and this citizenship right could be overruled in the future, they decided to make it so that all persons would be protected under the law. All black people are people, so this status insured the rights of blacks. The first clause and the third clause do not correlate in any way or form. This amendment is also the law that protects illegal immigrants from being shot by civilians and it being legal.

To sum it up: This amendment states that being born or naturalized on US soil means you are a citizen. Also, if you are a person on US soil you are protected by our law.

It disappoints me that so many people are wrong.

[_Locke_]

Born is when u go *POP* out of the womb so... are u talking about when life starts or being born?...

[TheCaliforniaLife]

_Locke_ wrote: Born is when u go *POP* out of the womb so... are u talking about when life starts or being born?...
Sure is. What I am trying to say is that being born only relates to recieving citizenship not protection under the law. If you are a person on US soil then you are protected under the 14th Amendment.

[Gitana]

A fertilized egg, zygote, embryo or fetus has not yet been legally, nationally, definitively defined a "person." Your entire arguement was based on a complete misunderstanding.

And, no - I've never heard a 'pro-choicer' mention your arguement. Must be a college thing.

[Selfish_Meme]

I have used the 14th ammendment, but in its proper form to say that the fetus is not a citizen. What the 14th ammendment does say is that you can end the life of a person as long as there is due process.

Human = species Homo Spaiens Sapiens
Being = a living thing
Human Being = Living member of Homo Sapiens Sapiens
Person = Human Being
Any conceptus/zygote/embryo/fetus is of the correct species
It is alive
so it is a Human Being.
Therefore it is a person
That is by legal definition. http://dictionary.law.com

[TheCaliforniaLife]

Some pro-choicers who used that argument:

VBach37 wrote: Section 1. 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.

By definition a fetus has not been born yet, and therefore is not a citizen (nor in my opinion is it a person)


Saf wrote: Do you understand what "born" means? It means came out of the vagina. It's not a life, period; goodbye thread!

Those are just 2 after a couple minutes of searching my old pro-life thread on this forum.

[Gitana]

I understand how you view this. My point is that the dictionary definition, or someone's understanding of a word, has nothing to do with a legal definition, in regards to formally declaring a conception, zygote or fetus officially a 'person.' No federal, precedent-setting case has formally and officially recognized a conception as a person in the sense that you mean, setting precedent for arguements such as yours. Until that happens, a fertilized egg has no legal recognition/status as a 'person' (again, in the sense that you mean), and therefore a Constitutional arguement based on the 14th amendment is moot.

Haven't you wondered why (even in states that prosecute accidental deaths of a fetus) a woman is never prosecuted for abortion?

[Selfish_Meme]

Isn't that because Roe vs Wade made abortion legal? You are allowed to kill people as long as due process is done, the due process was Roe vs Wade and going to an authorised clinic. So if a fetus is legally defined as a person, you still wouldn't be charged.

[TheCaliforniaLife]

Gitana wrote: I understand how you view this. My point is that the dictionary definition, or someone's understanding of a word, has nothing to do with a legal definition, in regards to formally declaring a conception, zygote or fetus officially a 'person.' No federal, precedent-setting case has formally and officially recognized a conception as a person in the sense that you mean, setting precedent for arguements such as yours. Until that happens, a fertilized egg has no legal recognition/status as a 'person' (again, in the sense that you mean), and therefore a Constitutional arguement based on the 14th amendment is moot.

Haven't you wondered why (even in states that prosecute accidental deaths of a fetus) a woman is never prosecuted for abortion?
Name a US Supreme court precedent setting case that defines a person.

Then again, this is going off topic. I was originally saying why do many pro-choicers believe that the 14th amendment states that born means being a person.

[Gitana]

As I said, I've never heard a pro-choicer use that arguement, so I don't know why they use it. no one else has answered you, and there are plenty of prochoice posters, so I'm guessing not many have heard that used, either.

Quote: Name a US Supreme court precedent setting case that defines a person.

We were discussing the legal status of an embryo, as regards the abortion topic; not cases in general.

Quote: Isn't that because Roe vs Wade made abortion legal? You are allowed to kill people as long as due process is done, the due process was Roe vs Wade and going to an authorised clinic. So if a fetus is legally defined as a person, you still wouldn't be charged.

No. The concept of 'due process' has no relevance to Roe, nor does the idea of a fetus as a 'person.' The only criteria applied in Roe to the fetus was viability, or lack thereof. Ownership by the mother was inherently understood, I believe. Why is this important? Because a fetus that has not attained viability independent of the mother cannot be considered a seperate person in the sense that you & Gilbert mean; it is an organism that is totally dependent upon, part of, and produced by, her body. This is the core paradox of the pro-life/pro-choice problem. You cannot seperate the fetus (at least in pre-viability stage) from the mother without dissolving the mothers inherent right of ownership of herself. Our courts recognize this, and are understandably reluctant to strip American women of their personhood, which would be an extremely dangerous precedent in a free country that recognizes individual sovereignity. You would have to declare legal status equal to the mother's, to a fertilized egg, in order to eliminate all abortion rights (ie, give someone else the right to govern the embryo). This would create an impossible legal paradox.

A woman is not charged with murder whether she has a legal abortion or an illegal one because of the above; the woman has sovereignity over herself in this free democracy. Until that changes, abortion will be legal in some form or another, and any laws that ban it completely will eventually face this core challenge and be overturned (unless we continue on our present course towards neocon oligarchy).

As passionately as some want to control the fate of all women's pregnancies, they must realize that in order to do so, they must declare that women do not have sovereign rights over their own bodies. This idea should disturb more people in a free country than it apparently does. Which is very disturbing, and I dearly hope not an indication that we are devolving into something other than a free country.

[Selfish_Meme]

Good Post, we tend to overlook the womens rights to her body, when we discuss abortions.

[JayDubya]

Fetus and zygote and blastula and what not are terms of scientific terms for developmental stages.

They are no different from "infant" or "toddler" or "teenager." Human embryology is not so special as to be distinct from later development.

Pro-abortion folks like to use terminology incorrectly just to dehumanize and push their agenda.

[Gitana]

Actually, prochoice people tend to use the scientific terms very accurately, as their position on abortion is usually based on the fetus's developmental stage. No one uses the terms to 'dehumanize' a fetus; they use them to correctly identify a stage of fetal growth, which has very specific areas of development that are unique to each stage.

Scientific terms tend to annoy prolifers because they usually believe anything from the moment of conception onward is a person, equal to any living human being. They are free to believe as they choose, but that doesn't change science, or the correct terminology of science. I can insist that an acorn is a tree, but it isn't, even though it will be, carries all the genetic info to become one, and was produced by a tree. To call it a tree would be inaccurate at best, and deliberate misinformation were I telling someone (foreign language student, for example) who didn't know better.

Your analogy is inaccurate, because the terms 'infant,' toddler' & 'teenager' are common usage terms that only roughly describe stages of growth.

Quote: Good Post, we tend to overlook the womens rights to her body, when we discuss abortions.

Ty. Unfortunately, I too often hear prolifers say "cut the 'it's my body' crap." Uh..ok, than who's body is it? LOL They never have an answer for this, for they do not want to confront the paradox.

[JayDubya]

Gitana wrote: Scientific terms tend to annoy prolifers because they usually believe anything from the moment of conception onward is a person, equal to any living human being. They are free to believe as they choose, but that doesn't change science, or the correct terminology of science.

You say this when by all rights you should know that my stance is neither religious nor based on conception as the starting point for a viable human life. I'm well versed in the scientific terminology relating to human development, and I'm saying I see nothing in the term "fetus" to distinguish it from other developmental terminology, yet so frequently I see the term bandied about as though a fetus was a distinct entity from a child.

[Gitana]

Quote: You say this when by all rights you should know that my stance is neither religious nor based on conception as the starting point for a viable human life.

I don't know you, and I didn't know your stance; I gave my most common experiences with prolifers as a general statement.

Quote: I see nothing in the term "fetus" to distinguish it from other developmental terminology, yet so frequently I see the term bandied about as though a fetus was a distinct entity from a child.

A fetus, at the point of development that graduates it from the term 'embryo' to 'fetus' (about 8 weeks), has no brain or nervous system - these are just beginning to form. It is less than half an inch in size. It is not a child. It will eventually become one, but as I said, an acorn is not a tree.

[Gilbert1908]

Gitana wrote: Quote: You say this when by all rights you should know that my stance is neither religious nor based on conception as the starting point for a viable human life.

I don't know you, and I didn't know your stance; I gave my most common experiences with prolifers as a general statement.

Quote: I see nothing in the term "fetus" to distinguish it from other developmental terminology, yet so frequently I see the term bandied about as though a fetus was a distinct entity from a child.

A fetus, at the point of development that graduates it from the term 'embryo' to 'fetus' (about 8 weeks), has no brain or nervous system - these are just beginning to form. It is less than half an inch in size. It is not a child. It will eventually become one, but as I said, an acorn is not a tree.

Person is not a scientific term, it is a philosophical and legal term.

When is the human embryo scientifically determined to be both alive and a human individual?

[Gitana]

All that has been covered in this thread. Since we are now repeating ourselves, it's time to end it.

[JayDubya]

Gitana wrote: Quote: You say this when by all rights you should know that my stance is neither religious nor based on conception as the starting point for a viable human life.

I don't know you, and I didn't know your stance; I gave my most common experiences with prolifers as a general statement.

Of course you don't *know* me, but we both post with enough regularity on this topic that I know your stances on the abortion issue. I know Selfish_Meme's, I know AllAmericanMan's, Lumina's, etc.

[Gitana]

Sorry - I'm usually reading the posts, not focusing on who the author is. My bad.

[Gilbert1908]

Gitana wrote: All that has been covered in this thread. Since we are now repeating ourselves, it's time to end it.

So then your answer should be brief and need no explaination.

When is the human embryo scientifically determined to be both alive and a human individual?