"Abortion is a distinct circumstance where one potential party to the matter must have personhood unambiguously established. And so here we are."
Agreed. The Constitution neither precludes nor includes the unborn regarding personhood.
For Christians I would add that there is a passage in the Old Testament that refers to God giving "the breath of life" 6 months into a pregnancy. I don't remember the reference; I learned of it decades ago. Something keeps coming to mind...I'll look for it.
Do not confuse identification with identity. You can identify a person from their DNA. It needs further argument, which you don’t supply, to conclude that DNA confers personhood on the individual so identified.
What you argue is that DNA establishes the identity of the person (when that person exists). It can do that without it being the case that whenever that DNA is present so is that person.
For that standard to prevail every instance of DNA identification would be subject to challenge on the basis that it "might" not reference a person.
Which then presumes that there is a legally recognized means of establishing personhood -- which you are excluding DNA from being.
Simply put, the law does not agree with you. The state of the law is that DNA identifies a person. If there is a DNA profile, there is a person to whom that profile belongs.
Not legally absurd; the 'legally recognised ways of establishing personhood' are complex and controversial, as evidenced by the disputes about 'brain death'. And none of those disputes revolves around the presence, or absence, of DNA. Legally thumbprints have been used as evidence of person's identity, but no-one, surely, would claim that the presence of a thumbprint is sufficient to establish personhood, nor the absence of one to establish non-personhood (there are cases of people not having thumbprints).
I think we will just have to agree to disagree, but I do respect the fact that you argue rather than shout.
I would argue the opposite. The 14th amendment makes it clear:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States,"
The unborn zygote, embryo or fetus has by definition not been born (or naturalized). It therefore is not yet a citizen & does not enjoy the rights or protections of citizenship.
The amendment does not state "that will be, or is expected to be, born..."
Having said that, I do wish Eric Adams' girlfriend had been denied her abortion & the world spared another woke politician. 😎
Personally, had abortions been legal in the 50s, I would not be here. Any questions I held about my status within my birth family were made abundantly clear by 1 of my 2 older sisters when I was in my early 30s.
Yet I believe a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy within the 1st trimester, & later than that in limited situations. I had a Catholic co-worker diagnosed with stomach cancer early in her final trimester. Her choice was stark: sacrifice her life to carry to term, or terminate & start chemo immediately.
She chose to sacrifice her life, and left a bereft, single father of 4. I am sorry she is gone, but relieved to know it was her choice. I would have been horrified if she'd received a death sentence by a bunch of politicians in DC.
For Christians, there is a passage in the old testament that makes clear that God "breathes life into" the not yet born at 6 months. Food for thought.
As the late Antonin Scalia said, "The Constitution says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say." And what the Fourteenth Amendment says on due process is this: "nor shall any state deprive 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."
The right to life is not one contingent upon citizenship, but is fundamental, enjoyed by every person. The guarantee of due process and the equal protection of the laws is likewise made without reference to citizenship.
Thus, if the creation of DNA is the establishment of personhood, these protections of the Fourteenth Amendment unquestionably apply, Remove personhood, and the bodily autonomy argument is strengthened considerably.
As a matter of fundamental English grammar, no, it could not.
What the initial clause of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment says is that a person must be born subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or must be naturalized to be a US citizen. It does not, either grammatically or logically, preclude the unborn from having personhood.
As an aside, this is why the personhood question is predicate to questions of bodily autonomy with respect to abortion. If the personhood question is overcome, then the parsimonious argument on bodily autonomy works in favor of the right and capacity of the woman to terminate a pregnancy. Even if the personhood argument is not overcome, the parsimonious argument on bodily autonomy is not voided but rather superseded.
To answer your question re: the constitution, it does not define a person. In virtually all legal questions besides abortion, personhood is easily presumed as the parties to an issue are all born. Abortion is a distinct circumstance where one potential party to the matter must have personhood unambiguously established.
Thank you for this fact based evidence! I now feel equipped to answer the "clump of cells is not a viable person" argument DNA = Person. If only we could have rational calm respectful discussions instead of blind rage screaming opinions. I will save this for future reference.
"Abortion is a distinct circumstance where one potential party to the matter must have personhood unambiguously established. And so here we are."
Agreed. The Constitution neither precludes nor includes the unborn regarding personhood.
For Christians I would add that there is a passage in the Old Testament that refers to God giving "the breath of life" 6 months into a pregnancy. I don't remember the reference; I learned of it decades ago. Something keeps coming to mind...I'll look for it.
Do not confuse identification with identity. You can identify a person from their DNA. It needs further argument, which you don’t supply, to conclude that DNA confers personhood on the individual so identified.
Except I don't argue that DNA confers personhood. I argue that DNA establishes that personhood has been conferred.
Which, as I demonstrated, is the current state of the law.
What you argue is that DNA establishes the identity of the person (when that person exists). It can do that without it being the case that whenever that DNA is present so is that person.
If DNA establishes the identity of a person, it by definition establishes that there is a person.
When there is a person there to be identified. The presence of DNA is insufficient to ensure that what it is in is a person.
That is legally absurd.
For that standard to prevail every instance of DNA identification would be subject to challenge on the basis that it "might" not reference a person.
Which then presumes that there is a legally recognized means of establishing personhood -- which you are excluding DNA from being.
Simply put, the law does not agree with you. The state of the law is that DNA identifies a person. If there is a DNA profile, there is a person to whom that profile belongs.
If there is a person, personhood is presumed.
Not legally absurd; the 'legally recognised ways of establishing personhood' are complex and controversial, as evidenced by the disputes about 'brain death'. And none of those disputes revolves around the presence, or absence, of DNA. Legally thumbprints have been used as evidence of person's identity, but no-one, surely, would claim that the presence of a thumbprint is sufficient to establish personhood, nor the absence of one to establish non-personhood (there are cases of people not having thumbprints).
I think we will just have to agree to disagree, but I do respect the fact that you argue rather than shout.
I would argue the opposite. The 14th amendment makes it clear:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States,"
The unborn zygote, embryo or fetus has by definition not been born (or naturalized). It therefore is not yet a citizen & does not enjoy the rights or protections of citizenship.
The amendment does not state "that will be, or is expected to be, born..."
Having said that, I do wish Eric Adams' girlfriend had been denied her abortion & the world spared another woke politician. 😎
Personally, had abortions been legal in the 50s, I would not be here. Any questions I held about my status within my birth family were made abundantly clear by 1 of my 2 older sisters when I was in my early 30s.
Yet I believe a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy within the 1st trimester, & later than that in limited situations. I had a Catholic co-worker diagnosed with stomach cancer early in her final trimester. Her choice was stark: sacrifice her life to carry to term, or terminate & start chemo immediately.
She chose to sacrifice her life, and left a bereft, single father of 4. I am sorry she is gone, but relieved to know it was her choice. I would have been horrified if she'd received a death sentence by a bunch of politicians in DC.
For Christians, there is a passage in the old testament that makes clear that God "breathes life into" the not yet born at 6 months. Food for thought.
There is a passage in the Old Testament that states that at conception we are sinners. At conception we need a Savior. Life starts at conception
Psalm 51:5 --
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
As the late Antonin Scalia said, "The Constitution says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say." And what the Fourteenth Amendment says on due process is this: "nor shall any state deprive 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."
The right to life is not one contingent upon citizenship, but is fundamental, enjoyed by every person. The guarantee of due process and the equal protection of the laws is likewise made without reference to citizenship.
Thus, if the creation of DNA is the establishment of personhood, these protections of the Fourteenth Amendment unquestionably apply, Remove personhood, and the bodily autonomy argument is strengthened considerably.
Where does the Constitution define a "person" or say when personhood begins?
The opening of the 14th amendment could easily imply that one must be born to be a person.
As a matter of fundamental English grammar, no, it could not.
What the initial clause of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment says is that a person must be born subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or must be naturalized to be a US citizen. It does not, either grammatically or logically, preclude the unborn from having personhood.
As an aside, this is why the personhood question is predicate to questions of bodily autonomy with respect to abortion. If the personhood question is overcome, then the parsimonious argument on bodily autonomy works in favor of the right and capacity of the woman to terminate a pregnancy. Even if the personhood argument is not overcome, the parsimonious argument on bodily autonomy is not voided but rather superseded.
To answer your question re: the constitution, it does not define a person. In virtually all legal questions besides abortion, personhood is easily presumed as the parties to an issue are all born. Abortion is a distinct circumstance where one potential party to the matter must have personhood unambiguously established.
And so here we are.
Thank you for this fact based evidence! I now feel equipped to answer the "clump of cells is not a viable person" argument DNA = Person. If only we could have rational calm respectful discussions instead of blind rage screaming opinions. I will save this for future reference.