GOP in Oklahoma trying to legislate "personhood" for embryos

[Cerpin Taxt]

This is the same rubbish you posted before. There is no comparison between this situation and any other in the manner you've stated it. No one else can occupy someone else's body.

That's not exactly true if they make fetuses persons, now is it, sport? And of course, it's rather irrelevant to the fact that whether or not it is possible no person would enjoy the unqualified right to do it.

It's sort of like deciding whether or not a person has the right to travel faster than the current speed record. It might not be possible right now, but you don't have to be a savant to know that it doesn't violate anyone's rights to break the record. Of couse, it would seem a person would have to be at least smarter than you --which is thankfully the vast majority of people.

More to the point, you totally ignored the other relevant violations I decscribed including injecting another person with hormones or waste. Nobody enjoys those unqualified rights, and if it is necessary to use lethal force in defense of such violations, it is justified.

You have attempted to extrapolate some non-applicable analogy to this discussion, then wonder why no one can follow what you're attempting to say.

The analogy is a direct rebuttal to your claims that lethal force is not justified.

And it's somnambule (amubulare being the Latin for "to walk"), not somnabule. Yet another reason no one else knows what the hell you're getting at.

Trust me, you are the only person who could be confused by the difference between "somnabule" and "somnambule." Everyone with an IQ greater than his shoe size could figure it out on their own.

No one can apprehend (sic) your argument because
A) you've stated it so unclearly that it's inapprehensible (see what I did there?), or
B) the idea itself is inapprehensible (oops I did it again).

This is a very strange criticism. I have not misspelled nor misused "apprehend." Do you think that I have?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The conceptus can lose its life whenever it threatens the life of another, just as any other person forfeits its right to life by threatening the life of another.

A person can lose his right to life for much less. I think that is the point that eludes you in our discussion. If I can demonstrate that it is reasonably necessary to kill a person to defend my bodily integrity (say, from an injection of dangerous but not life-threatening chemicals) I am justified -- that was the thrust of the somnambule analogy. It just so happens that in most cases which are not pregnancy there are usually reasonable alternatives (fleeing, for example).

 

[shira]

I never made any of the arguments you're claiming, nor did the Supreme Court state what you claim they stated. They stated that Amendment XIV identifies a person as any human born or naturalized in the US and used this as a foundation for all of the rubbish that followed. It was a cop out to avoid making any real arguments and clearly neglected all context of the true meaning of said amendment. Oklahoma can do whatever the hell it wants if the federal government refuses to act. You simply don't like what Oklahoma might pass and will come up with whatever insane arguments you can think of, including attacking me personally, in your INCREDIBLE RAGE!!!1! against anyone who has the audacity to disagree with you. Take a breath.

Your bolded statement is utterly false. You've got Roe v Wade ass backwards. You're claiming that the decision stated that the 14th Amendment DEFINES what a person is. No! The decision stated that the USE of the word "person" in the 14th Amendment does not include fetuses.

The decision in Roe v Wade addressed - in part - the issue of whether "person" - as USED IN the 14th Amendment - could possibly refer to a fetus. The State of Texas had claimed that its anti-abortion law was valid because (it claimed) a fetus is a person, and persons are protected by the 14th Amendment. The decision therefore analyzed what "person" means, and concluded that "person" does not refer to fetuses. Here are the relevant passages from Roe v Wade:

IX A:

The appellee [= Texas] and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In other words, Texas claims that the word "person" includes fetuses, and therefore fetuses are protected by the 14th Amendment. But Texas also acknowledges that there's no legal precedent for this claim. Texas is not making the claim that the 14th Amendment defines what a person is; it's claiming that the meaning of "person" includes fetuses and that therefore the 14th amendment protects fetuses.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

The decision analyzes how and where "person" is used historically and in the Constitution, and no basis is found to conclude that fetuses are "persons" under the Constitution. Therefore, a fetus's life and liberty aren't protected by the 14th Amendment.