I must have a different Constitution than you, because nowhere in mine does it grant fetuses any rights. But I suppose it’s a living document open to interpretation from anyone--it’s just a giant inkblot.
Dave - 10:04am on 04/18/2007
The constitution grants rights to persons. If you’re a moron and try to define a child at conception as something other than a person at the very beginning of its developmental process then yeah, I guess you could say that the constitution doesn’t apply.
And you’d still be a moron.
Rob - 10:04am on 04/18/2007
I don’t think it takes a moron to consider a fetus a potential person rather than a person proper.
MikeAdamson - 10:04am on 04/18/2007
I must have a different Constitution than you, because nowhere in mine does it grant fetuses any rights.
Dave,
My copy of the Constitution doesn’t say a thing about abortion, either.
Bat One - 10:04am on 04/18/2007
I don’t think it takes a moron to consider a fetus a potential person rather than a person proper.
MikeA,
And what sort of moral moron would use that distinction of yours as justification for sticking a hypodermic needle into the head of that “potential person” and sucking it’s brains out?
Bat One - 10:04am on 04/18/2007
MikeA: Instead of using “fetus” in your thinking, try using the correct term: “human fetus”. It might clear things up for you.
robert108 - 11:04am on 04/18/2007
What is “potential” about a human fetus? A fetus is a child. One at the very earliest stages of its development.
Remember that the way our bodies develop is a process, an uninterrupted contiuum, that begins at conception and ends at death. Trying to pick a point within that contiuum and say “before this there is no person, but after there is” is absurd on its very face.
If we say that a child is not a person until it emerges from the womb why not say that the child is not a person until he/she can crawl? Or talk?
That would be every bit as arbitrary.
Rob - 11:04am on 04/18/2007
Bat One:
My copy of the Constitution doesn’t say a thing about abortion, either.
Great, then we’re on the same boat.
If you believe the Constitution contains a “right” to abortion, then you would oppose allowing the states to vote on it--you’d agree with the current SCOTUS position.
If you believe the Constitution contains a magical “fetal right to life”, then you would also oppose allowing the states to vote on it, unless you honestly believe that individual states should have the option of directly violating the Constitution.
If you know how to read, and know that the Constitution says nothing about abortion either way (it does not say human fetuses have a right to life or due process, nor does it say women have a right to abortion), then you believe that the correct approach is allowing the state legislatures to vote on it however they’d like--ya know, states’ rights and all that jazz.
Rob wants to have his cake and eat it too.
And this is why Rob is fat.
Dave - 11:04am on 04/18/2007
r108:
Instead of using “fetus” in your thinking, try using the correct term: “human fetus”. It might clear things up for you.
Great. And are “human fetuses” protected by the Constitution? Let’s check!
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
Hm.... no mention of “human fetuses” here. I asked my mildly retarded brother if he knew who was protected by the 14th Amendment, and he immediately and correctly replied “persons.” (He then took a nap.) He knew this because, despite his mental retardation, he can still read at above a 3rd grade level.
It’s not too late to go back to school, robert108. Never...never give up.
Dave - 11:04am on 04/18/2007
Dave, you can obfuscate all you want but the real difference between you and Rob [and many of the other regulars that comment here) is that you consider the human fetus to be a thing and we consider it to be a person. The rights of persons are protected by the Constitution. And as Rob pointed out most vigorously is that the so-called transition of a fetus from a thing to a person is arbitrary and cannot be justified medically, rationally or by any other mechanism.
I must have a different Constitution than you, because nowhere in mine does it grant fetuses any rights. But I suppose it’s a living document open to interpretation from anyone--it’s just a giant inkblot.
The constitution grants rights to persons. If you’re a moron and try to define a child at conception as something other than a person at the very beginning of its developmental process then yeah, I guess you could say that the constitution doesn’t apply.
And you’d still be a moron.
I don’t think it takes a moron to consider a fetus a potential person rather than a person proper.
Dave,
My copy of the Constitution doesn’t say a thing about abortion, either.
MikeA,
And what sort of moral moron would use that distinction of yours as justification for sticking a hypodermic needle into the head of that “potential person” and sucking it’s brains out?
MikeA: Instead of using “fetus” in your thinking, try using the correct term: “human fetus”. It might clear things up for you.
What is “potential” about a human fetus? A fetus is a child. One at the very earliest stages of its development.
Remember that the way our bodies develop is a process, an uninterrupted contiuum, that begins at conception and ends at death. Trying to pick a point within that contiuum and say “before this there is no person, but after there is” is absurd on its very face.
If we say that a child is not a person until it emerges from the womb why not say that the child is not a person until he/she can crawl? Or talk?
That would be every bit as arbitrary.
Bat One:
Great, then we’re on the same boat.If you believe the Constitution contains a “right” to abortion, then you would oppose allowing the states to vote on it--you’d agree with the current SCOTUS position.
If you believe the Constitution contains a magical “fetal right to life”, then you would also oppose allowing the states to vote on it, unless you honestly believe that individual states should have the option of directly violating the Constitution.
If you know how to read, and know that the Constitution says nothing about abortion either way (it does not say human fetuses have a right to life or due process, nor does it say women have a right to abortion), then you believe that the correct approach is allowing the state legislatures to vote on it however they’d like--ya know, states’ rights and all that jazz.
Rob wants to have his cake and eat it too.
And this is why Rob is fat.
r108:
Great. And are “human fetuses” protected by the Constitution? Let’s check!Hm.... no mention of “human fetuses” here. I asked my mildly retarded brother if he knew who was protected by the 14th Amendment, and he immediately and correctly replied “persons.” (He then took a nap.) He knew this because, despite his mental retardation, he can still read at above a 3rd grade level.
It’s not too late to go back to school, robert108. Never...never give up.
Dave, you can obfuscate all you want but the real difference between you and Rob [and many of the other regulars that comment here) is that you consider the human fetus to be a thing and we consider it to be a person. The rights of persons are protected by the Constitution. And as Rob pointed out most vigorously is that the so-called transition of a fetus from a thing to a person is arbitrary and cannot be justified medically, rationally or by any other mechanism.