Do you consider the unborn to be a person? if yes, wouldn't the unborn apply to the 14th ammendment?

[Anonymous]

Are the unborn considered persons? If yes, wouldn't the 14th amendment grant the unborn protections from any state depriving 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.
constitution.congress.gov/.../

I think the Supreme Court should answer the question as to whether or not the unborn are considered persons so that we can know if the unborn apply to the 14th ammendment or not.

Yes, the unborn are considered persons and absolutely apply to the 14th ammendment!

No, the unborn are not persons and therefore do not apply to the 14th ammendment.

[nightdrot]

Yes, an unborn human child must be a person.

A thing cannot be other than what it is. When a human egg and a human sperm meet, the only thing that will ever result is human. It will not become a duck or a cow or anything else.

It is what it must be at any point of its development. To point to some sub-category that defines humanity is problematic. If, for example, it is argued that a fetus is not human because it cannot talk, you immediately strip away the humanity of the person in a coma or the deaf mute.

With reference to the 14th Amendment, the essence of the abortion debate to which you allude is that once the definition of "human" becomes not a fact, but a subjective moment in time, lots of bad things begin to happen. That definition becoming controlled by those with the power to exercise and impose it and thus an ethic of subjective power and not moral principle comes to dominate the culture.

A fetus cannot be anything other than a human life. It cannot be other than what it is and if it was not human it would have to have the capacity to become something other than a human being. This it does not have and therefore it cannot be other than what it is - a human being at a point in the natural aging and growing of a human being.

The argument that a fetus is not a human being is problematic. If it is not, then at what point does it become human? What then is the physical difference one second before that instant and one second after? Moreover, what is the moral distinction one second before that moment and one second after?

The last question is pertinent. First, because it is assumed that humans have an inherent worth and that they have rights that inhere in their humanity. "Worth" and "rights" are not physical but philosophical and epistemological phenomena. Therefore, there must be something consistent with physical development that conduces to a moral outcome. It is therefore essential to know what that is and when it happens.

Typically, some will argue that consciousness is the defining factor. That, however, is problematic. The man in a coma lacks consciousness - awareness of self and surroundings. If it is argued that a man in a coma MIGHT recover, then potentiality is the criteria. The problem being that the fetus shares - from the moment of conception - that same potentiality.

A thing does not lose its defining moral and physical characteristics just because of where it is any moment in time. Physical development is transitory, but a being does not lose certain essential characteristics. A fetuses' DNA is as human as an adult. There is no difference at any point in time from conception to death. To repeat, the fetus has NO potential to become a duck. It cannot be other than what it is.

As to the example that a human being by even the 5th month will not survive on its own. That too is a flawed argument. By that logic, the man in a coma is not human as he will not survive absent means to sustain his life. Suddenly your definition of "human" is based on very slippery soil. Humanity being defined by its capacity to survive.

By that logic, the infant is similarly doomed. After all, he too cannot survive absent the conditions that make his survival possible. This again leaving his humanity to be defined by those with the power to provide such conditions.

Further, "worth" and "rights" are either objective and inherent, in which case they cannot be justly taken at the convenience of another being. Alternatively, they are subjective and relative to time and circumstance. In which case, they can be taken as easily from a newly conceived child as from a black man in the pre-Civil War south or a Jew in 1930s Germany.

The problem at the moment is that the culture claims that it believes that life has inherent worth and inherent rights. However, it places freedom and therefore will above such beliefs in practice. As Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations." Thus do rights become not inherent to the human being, but a subjective judgment that can be taken by those with the power to take it.

[Dargil]

The setup of the post is fine, but you are looking for answers to support an anti-abortion narrative? Better to ask a question that invites affirmation of your view. Not a cross-examination. As regards abortion, I'm, a "heart beat" guy.

[Asker]

That doesn't work

[Dargil]

Well then ask the question you want answered.

[Asker]

I did

[Dargil]

You would get more answers if readers knew your narrative,

[Asker]

Maybe if people weren't idiots they'd understand my narrative

[handsomelad70]

Only in the BENIGHTED States of America would this inane question be even cursorily entertained.

[Dongie]

No murdering the little baby's. Period. Conception is a beginning of a full fucking life.

[handsomelad70]

"Heartbeart Of America " like the perennial car commercial?

[msc545]

Of course an unborb child is a person. Women will tell you that such a child is not a person because they want the right to kill them because they find such children sometimes to be an inconvenience.

[Asker]

And I find women to always be an inconvenience. If only we could abort them the same way they abort their own babies

[goaded]

Neither. Viable, healthy fetuses that can survive outside the womb should be, in my opinion. Earlier ones are dependent on a living, breathing parent who also has rights, and anyone carrying an unhealthy fetuses should have the right to make end of life decisions.

[Surely]

I have often thought about your question. If a criminal can be charged and convicted for a double murder. When a pregnant woman is killed. Why wouldn’t abortions be considered murder? Just my thoughts, people! My actual opinion is choice. But not to include partial birth abortions.

[Juxtapose]

Before the brainstem develops their is no mind, no feeling, nothin'. It's like blowing a load of semen and killing all those sperm cells. There's no humanity there, no cognition or feeling.

[Dongie]

Right. We put you under induced coma... what are you going to feel when you're ripped apart.🤯

[Juxtapose]

@Dongie I resent being compared to a clump of cells that has never felt or thought anything before.

[Dongie]

I hear thee

[Juxtapose]

Well regardless of my bitching, do you think life begins at conception because a soul enters there according to your beliefs?

[Dongie]

I don't consider Gods timing but for the start. Cum meet egg, baby.

[Juxtapose]

So should a miscarriage have a funeral in a more Christian society?

[JacobJordan]

Well fetus means offspring. And offspring is another name for a child. Soooooooo

[goaded]

No, it doesn't.

" an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind
specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth "
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus

[JacobJordan]

@goaded look up synonyms next. And then shut the fuck up imbecile lol. God damn you are dumb as hell

[goaded]

You could start with a dictionary. And washing your mouth out.

[JacobJordan]

@goaded and you could start by educating yourself before you waste my fuckin time with your retardation.

[goaded]

What dictionary says "fetus means offspring"?

[JacobJordan]

@goaded did I say the definition of fetus is offspring moron? No. I said fetus means offspring. What is the definition of meaning? I'll help since you are brain damaged. what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action. Oh and welcome to reality retard fetus definition under medicine "Having to do with a fetus. A fetus is an unborn offspring that develops and grows inside the uterus (womb) of humans and other mammals. In humans, the fetal period begins at 9 weeks after fertilization of an egg by a sperm and ends at birth." Womp womp now be silent. You are wrong on both cases you are trying to defend and as fun as it is making you look like the idiot you are it is too easy and getting boring

[JacobJordan]

@goaded not to mention the origin of fetus is Latin and means little one. It was a term of endearment for babies, born and unborn and small children. So now you are language wrong, medically wrong, scientifically wrong, biologically wrong and historically wrong. And legally wrong because of your stupidity on another question. Anything else you want to add dumb dumb?

[goaded]

Oh, we're talking Latin now, are we? Stick to the English meaning of the word.

[JacobJordan]

@goaded lol just because you are too fucking dumb doesn't mean everyone else is. Clauditis defectum humanae vitae. Anglicus est amalgamatio plurium linguarum ac retardare putaret unam definitionem applicat. Foetus semper alius terminus prolis fuit usque in recentem cum faeminae faeces et home retardatus est ut filios necare possit. In variis linguis stultam te facere possum puer es non sapis cedere dum habes aliquid dignitatis relictum.

[goaded]

Fetus also means fruit in Latin. Is eating an apple murder now? Dumbass.

[OtterMan68]

don't some states have upped murder charges if a pregnant woman is murdered and she loses the baby?

[Asker]

It counts as a double murder. So that just goes to show that abortion kills a baby and shouldn't happen without say so by a court of law hence the 14th ammendment

[Twalli]

In order for SCOTUS to hear a case it need to be appealed up to them. Since SCOTUS recently declared it a state decision, they probably aren't going to overturn the decision.

[Dongie]

What the hell else are they?

[goaded]

Is an acorn an oak tree?

[Dongie]

@goaded/ Is a knuckle sandwich tasty?

[Tomisworthless]

unborns are like slaves they have no rights