People who need people...
I'd really like some feedback from all of you about when be become "persons". I've been in a raging debate for several months now with some folks who insist that embryonic stem cells are "people."
Here's what I'd like you all to do:
Read the 14th and the 9th Amendments to the US Constitution and tell me what you think they say. (Don't worry, they're very short.) Then tell me what you think about when we become "persons."
Thanks!
___________________
Note that Senate Minority Leader Bill Frist (who is also a doctor) has broken ranks with Georgie Jesus over this issue. That's a pretty big deal considering we're about to review new Supreme court justices who will have to decide on these issues. Your rights are on the line right now folks. Time to decide where you stand (if you've not done so already).
______________________
p.s. Scogg, have you become a person yet?
...I know I'm still working on it.
Here's what I'd like you all to do:
Read the 14th and the 9th Amendments to the US Constitution and tell me what you think they say. (Don't worry, they're very short.) Then tell me what you think about when we become "persons."
Thanks!
___________________
Note that Senate Minority Leader Bill Frist (who is also a doctor) has broken ranks with Georgie Jesus over this issue. That's a pretty big deal considering we're about to review new Supreme court justices who will have to decide on these issues. Your rights are on the line right now folks. Time to decide where you stand (if you've not done so already).
______________________
p.s. Scogg, have you become a person yet?
...I know I'm still working on it.
posted by Bill Fleming at 11:26 AM
16 Comments:
I have fallowed your debate. I am exactly on the same page as you Pops. I have read through the Blogmore debates quite a bit and I have learned a lot. I think your facts are right and true.
The other thing that strikes me on this issue is that although you are my dad, you haven’t really ever had the chance to influence my opinions on this matter, yet they are the same still. A lot of my believes come from my mom who has had the opportunity to influence my thought. Must say something for genetics hu?
Okay...here is my thought on your application of the Constitution:
As for rights under the constitution, I don't think you can call the embryo a person who has rights, because the 14th Amendment specifically states "a person who is born or naturalized" in the United States.
Does that make the embryo a person? Maybe. However, it doesn't make them a person who has Constitutional rights.
As for embryos being people outside the scope of the Constitution, I can honestly say I flip flop on that issue.
Scale down sex...take away the purpose of enjoyment for the sake of this argument. Why have sex? To procreate...we're one of the only species who also does it "for sport." If the purpose is to procreate, how can you not call an embryo a person until a certain time. Also, how can it be an embryo one day, and then next day it's a person?
HOWEVER, how can you call an embryo a person when it can't live on its own until a certain age, and how can you call it a person when it has no semblance to a person until a certain time.
So to summarize my answer to your question, my opinion is as follows:
1. For purposes of the Constitution, an embryo is NOT a person with rights.
2. I'm not sure if the embryo can be considered a person.
...and that's all I have to say about that.
Thanks Skogg.
That works for the 14th Amendment, but what about the 9th? What about Human Rights and Natural Rights? That's probably where the action is in the court if they can get you to say the "person" thing. As in: "You wouldn't deny these human rights to a person born somewhere else would you (as per Guantanimo Bay, etc)?" (Just playing "their" side for a minute.) The Constitution doesn't presume to enumerate every single right a person has, does it? (Obviously not, or why the need for Amendment 9.)
_____
Bon, I hold these positions because I have a daughter, not vice versa. You are the one who influenced me! Otherwise, I have no "dog in the hunt." I can guarantee you that I, personally, will never have to consider having an abortion. I don't have the right plumbing.
14th is later than the 9th, which means you can assume, for purposes of legislative intent, that they were aware of the wording of the 9th when the 14th was drafted.
Otherwise stated, there's an argument that since the 14th limits its definition of "people" for purposes of Constitutional rights, the same limitation can be applied to the right enumerated in the 9th Amendment.
So a fetus, illegal immigrant and centaur don't have rights.
Well, maybe a centaur would...
Point to ponder.
--Skoggle
P.S. Spin and Owl - stop complimenting each other. It's too smoochy.
I don't know Skog. You can't just kill an illegal. There are presumed human rights. Centaurs should be spanked but not killed.
Yes, but the murder statutes don't define "person," they define "human being."
Subtle let important difference. For example, South Dakota's definition of "homicide," SDCL Section 22-16-1, reads:
Homicide is the killing of one human being, including an unborn child, by another. It is either:
1. Murder;
2. Manslaughter;
3. Excusable homicide;
4. Justifiable homicide; or
5. Vehicular homicide.
Now, before you get your feathers up, the next statute in the chapter, 22-16-1.1, defines fetal homicide as homicide only if a person knows, or reasonably should have known, that the woman was pregnant and the killer caused the death of the unborn child "without lawful justification."
Sidenote: Why is this a problematic statute? Well, if our state passes a law banning abortion, or if the United States Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade (which could happen with one ore more appointments of extreme conservatives), abortion doctors become murderers if they continue in their line of work.
But back to our human being v. person debate...
So my point is that the criminal statutes, both in South Dakota and elsewhere, deal with the action, not the intended victim. Otherwise, we could kill anything/anybody not covered by the Constitution and without penalty. This would include:
1. Foreign Tourists
2. Canadians (should be allowed)
3. Animals (i.e. they could not enforce cruelty to animals crimes under the "no rights" theory)
4. Illegal Immigrants
and yes...
5. The Centaurs.
Now, I'm not trying to compare illegal immigrants to animals, but you see my point.
And that's all I have to say about that...for now.
And remember...you can't have manslaughter without laughter.
Good job, Skog! So when does a fertilized egg become an unborn child? And when is that unborn child considered a human being? That's what I've been arguing with this guy about.
By the way Skog, that was a genius thing you just taught me. Thanks! It shines a whole new light on my opponant's debate strategy. I've got some adjustments to make in my arguments now.
I'd still be interested to hear your thoughts on my last question though.
Anyone else's too, ok?
I can't answer that question for other people...only for myself.
Ok, Skog, fair enough.
I just reread what I typed.
Holy Shit...when did I become pro-choice?
(starts to sift through her papers)
Check in with me soon, new post coming,same subject, try Thursday!
But remember, the owls are not as they seem.
I feel bad every time I squirt my man juice in the shower. they are people too.
Can't wait Toad. I'll be lurkin', man.
Hey, did Toad forget to say "PLUG!"?
The nerve.
Post a Comment
<< Home