Post Reply
4 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 2:05AM #1
Bei1052
Posts: 986

This isn't related to abortion per se, but it does contain the issue of being a person, and I know how much some of you love to rely on the whole "It's not a person!" defense when arguing for abortion ;)

Link

After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president's fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a "suspected enemy combatant" by the president or his designated minions is no longer a "person."  They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever -- save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials.



Aren't you glad to know that you live in a country where you can be deemed a non-person and have your rights stripped from you if the government so deems? Makes you wonder what the definition of a person is, doesn't it?

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 7:14AM #2
Tmarie64
Posts: 5,277

What, exactly, does this have to do with abortion?  When was the last time a full grown, adult terrorist was aborted?

James Thurber - "It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 10:41AM #3
Marysara722
Posts: 2,548


The "Dred Scott" case never declared "slaves" as being "non-persons" ....

What the court did say, was that they weren't "citizens" under the U.S. Constitution but in fact they were citizens of other "Sovereign" nations.


Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 12:23PM #4
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Jan 18, 2010 -- 7:14AM, Tmarie64 wrote:

What, exactly, does this have to do with abortion?  When was the last time a full grown, adult terrorist was aborted?



I didn't name any names but... You're one of the "It's not a person!" apologists, among others, constantly using it as the basis for your arguments as to why abortion is acceptable. Therefore, if you're going to defend arbitrarily defining one group out of rights on the basis of them not being persons, then you should have no problem with doing the same to another group, in this case "suspected enemy combatants", which doesn't mean terrorist (It means anyone the government accuses of being such).

Surely, you wouldn't argue that "personhood" is irrelevant to how we treat human beings, and that the concept of "personhood" is nothing more than a means to end, now would you? Naw, of course you wouldn't. The law of the land is supreme, and those we don't want to be persons won't be persons, right?

Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:41AM, Marysara722 wrote:

The "Dred Scott" case never declared "slaves" as being "non-persons" ....



What the court did say, was that they weren't "citizens" under the U.S. Constitution but in fact they were citizens of other "Sovereign" nations.



Click on the link; it's the name of the article. And I'm venturing to guess you didn't read it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 1:33PM #5
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

The Dred Scott decision was not one of personhood; Scott was unquestionably a person.  If he had not been a person, he would never have been permitted to sue four times for his freedom.  The point of the decision was that he was not a citizen, and at that time, citizenship was the issue.


The way to clear a decision such as this is the way it was in fact cleared - with the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.  And the fourteenth is clear as glass about personhood and citizenship.  Birth ... or naturalization ... is the key.


The right to lifers certainly have that option - that is, a constitutional amendment - available to them if they can convince enough people of the equivalence of their cause to slavery.  So far, they haven't been able to do so.


But I would agree, denying personhood to a born and breathing human being who may or may not have terrorist affiliations is absolutely wrong.

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 1:38PM #6
Marysara722
Posts: 2,548

Jan 18, 2010 -- 12:23PM, Bei1052 wrote:

Click on the link; it's the name of the article. And I'm venturing to guess you didn't read it.


Well [as usual] you guessed wrong.


And what does the "name" of the "title" have to do with the fact that either the former slaves or enemy combatants are still "persons" no matter that some crazed neo-con thinks otherwise?

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 1:52PM #7
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Jan 18, 2010 -- 1:33PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

The Dred Scott decision was not one of personhood; Scott was unquestionably a person.  If he had not been a person, he would never have been permitted to sue four times for his freedom.  The point of the decision was that he was not a citizen, and at that time, citizenship was the issue.



Read. The. Article.


The way to clear a decision such as this is the way it was in fact cleared - with the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.  And the fourteenth is clear as glass about personhood and citizenship.  Birth ... or naturalization ... is the key.



*le sigh*


When are you ever going to get around to reading either Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey? Because I always seem to end up having to quote bits and pieces of each case for you. But I digress (As per usual).


No, the 14th Amendment isn't, as you say, clear as day. Taken from Roe v. Wade.


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; 53 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.



The court argued that it wasn't the intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment to include the unborn as persons, not that the 14th Amendment clearly set the bounds of "personhood".


But the above is moot, anyway. Much how you like to point out what SCOTUS says and base your arguments on what they rule, then I 'spose I can do the same. So, without further ado... Apparently, being born and breathing doesn't make you a person ;). So what's the definition of a person then?


The right to lifers certainly have that option - that is, a constitutional amendment - available to them if they can convince enough people of the equivalence of their cause to slavery.  So far, they haven't been able to do so.



We don't need to do that. Roe v. Wade will go by the wayside eventually, as all the super feminists (Who are typically 40+) will die off some day and be replaced by more pro-life generations.


But I would agree, denying personhood to a born and breathing human being who may or may not have terrorist affiliations is absolutely wrong.



It's no more wrong than denying personhood to the unborn. After all, like I've said many times before, if the government can define one subset of the population out of rights on the basis that they're not persons, then they can do the same to another segment of the population under the same rationale, and neither instance is more wrong than another.


Jan 18, 2010 -- 1:38PM, Marysara722 wrote:

Well [as usual] you guessed wrong.



And what does the "name" of the "title" have to do with the fact that either the former slaves or enemy combatants are still "persons" no matter that some crazed neo-con thinks otherwise?



Okay... Where to begin...


1.) You, obviously, didn't read the article, because if you did you'd notice that nowhere in the article does it state that slaves weren't persons. Nowhere. If you had indeed read the link like you said you did, you'd notice that the one mention of Dred Scott outside of the title was a quote given by Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a co-counsel on the case. So try again.


2.) No, enemy combatants aren't persons protected by the U.S. Constitution, and you not liking it won't change that fact (Ironic twist of fate here?).


3.) I facepalmed at the underlined.

Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook