elohiym
Well-known member
The U.S. Supreme Court cannot find personhood unconstitutional.
Here is my stance on personhood consistent with Roe v. Wade.
toldailytopic: Do you support the Personhood movement?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
The U.S. Supreme Court cannot find personhood unconstitutional.
Here is my stance on personhood consistent with Roe v. Wade.
We all agree that is a factor.
Would you agree that it's possible (and even wise) to fight abortion on many fronts?
Furthermore.... Personhood is merely the proper framing of the debate. Without the personhood movement all other efforts fall into the "abortion regulation" category.
Personhood will never go away from here on out because it's personhood that properly sets the standard for why abortion is wrong in the first place (all living humans are persons and deserve protection under the law).
Sozo again
New member
Is this cumulative?
So by your standard you believe that anyone who is in a coma is no longer a person and does not deserve protection under the law.
That's a very perverted position to hold.
so how come it is still legal to kill you baby before it is born?
WandererInFog
New member
Sure it can. It would be completely wrongheaded in doing so, but that's hardly proved a serious obstacle in the past.
Now, for my own part, I've gradually come around to seeing pursuing personhood amendments via direct referendum as a solid part of the strategy for re-criminalizing abortion in the United States, but it's not a silver bullet that will completely fix everything by itself.
elohiym
Well-known member
Because men and women are evil, and most people are stupid and haven't even read Roe v. Wade.
elohiym
Well-known member
On what possible grounds could the SCOTUS find personhood unconstitutional?
but you are not supporting my front
and
that is getting conservative judges on the courts
WandererInFog
New member
Just off the top of my head? They could rule that it conflicts with the federal laws they use to establish a Right to Privacy and that the federal laws trumps the state ones. They could rule that by granting citizenship at birth, federal law establishes that as the time when personhood begins which thereby trumps any attempt on the part of the state to establish personhood at a different time. And given someone who has decades of legal experience and large staff I'm sure they could come up with far more ways to rule against it.
The basic problem is that most of the judges on the court, right and left, do not really judge cases based on their individual merits. They start from a foregone conclusion based on their political philosophy and find a way to justify it. And if one is willing to engage in a sufficient level of sophistry, one can craft an argument supporting pretty much anything.
Of course I support that effort.
I may not agree your strategy for accomplishing that goal is correct, but of course I support trying to get conservative judges on the court.
right now we have at least three judges on the Supreme Court that do not have a problem with partial birth abortion
what is your strategy to get conservative judges on the court?
Off topic.
We are straying way too far off topic. If you want to start another thread you are of course welcome to do that. :up:
One Eyed Jack
New member
An animal does. Do you consider them to be persons?
Personhood is a powerful movement because it not only fights battles at the local and federal level but more importantly it works on the hearts of the people by properly framing the debate in a way that's tough to argue with (i.e., all living humans are people that deserve rights).
The Berean
Well-known member
Good point. Chimpanzees and gorillas would be considered "persons" under Punisher's definition of personhood.
Son of Jack
New member
Are you surprised?? The problem is that he isn't the only one. Peter Singer holds this exact position. Google him and you'll see why that matters.
Sozo again
New member
What makes you think he doesn't consider them?
- Status