New Restrictions on Abortion Have Real World Consequences
XFilesGeek wrote:
Just like your insistence on comparing money to flesh.
That doesn't appear in any of my posts. Go read them. If you can't be bothered to do that before shooting your mouth off, you should be more careful with your use of pejoratives like "moronic." Glass houses and all...
NobodyKnows wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Just like your insistence on comparing money to flesh.
That doesn't appear in any of my posts. Go read them. If you can't be bothered to do that before shooting your mouth off, you should be more careful with your use of pejoratives like "moronic." Glass houses and all...
We were discussing bodily autonomy. You came in blathering about taxes.
Taxes don't violate you're bodily autonomy as money isn't your body.
Clear? Good.
_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."
-XFG (no longer a moderator)
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,739
Location: the island of defective toy santas
Mikah wrote:
Dvdz wrote:
After reading more about it, it seems we are both wrong.
Legal personhood depends on the context. For example, in the context of contract law, children and the mentally-incapacitated are not legal persons.
But in the context of homicide, children are definitely legal persons. And some states in the U.S even extend the concept of legal personhood to fetuses for homicide. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foeticide ... ted_States)
Legal personhood depends on the context. For example, in the context of contract law, children and the mentally-incapacitated are not legal persons.
But in the context of homicide, children are definitely legal persons. And some states in the U.S even extend the concept of legal personhood to fetuses for homicide. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foeticide ... ted_States)
I don't think I am wrong. In the context of homicide they are not legal persons because they still can't sign contracts or sue.
They are "legally speaking, persons".
They are not, however, "legal persons".
Even more confusing, "legal personhood" could correctly refer to either state.
From Dyschkant, A. Legal Personhood: How We Are Getting It Wrong. Illinois Law Review. Volume 2015, p. 2075 (http://www.illinoislawreview.org/wp-con ... chkant.pdf)
Quote:
Children are generally presumed to be legal persons. The Supreme Court has directly addressed the question of personhood for children when analyzing whether children can bring forward a Fourteenth Amendment claim. For example, in Levy v. Louisiana, the Court overturned a Louisiana statute declaring illegitimate children “nonpersons”:
“We start from the premise that illegitimate children are not ‘nonpersons.’ They are humans, live, and have their being. They are clearly ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The justification for including illegitimate children as legal persons is almost immediately obvious to Justice Douglas
and follows directly from the fact that children are living human beings who “have their being.” The Supreme Court also held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects children as well as adults. This clearly places children in the category of legal persons according to the constitutional meaning.
“We start from the premise that illegitimate children are not ‘nonpersons.’ They are humans, live, and have their being. They are clearly ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The justification for including illegitimate children as legal persons is almost immediately obvious to Justice Douglas
and follows directly from the fact that children are living human beings who “have their being.” The Supreme Court also held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects children as well as adults. This clearly places children in the category of legal persons according to the constitutional meaning.
XFilesGeek wrote:
Clear?
That you're in a non-monogamous relationship with the truth, yes.
XFilesGeek wrote:
We were discussing bodily autonomy.
When the OP raised the question of whether governments curtail it to support safety nets.
Quote:
You came in blathering...
My response was three sentences long and focused exclusively on what he said.
Quote:
...about taxes.
No, it focused squarely on the ability of people to work toward their basic needs and never mentioned taxes directly.
Uh-huh. And it's already been addressed.
Taxes don't violate bodily autonomy as money isn't your body. Several people have elaborated on that point, but, for whatever the reason, you keep banging on about how taxation is somehow related to abortion. If you want to talk about invalid comparisons, maybe scrub them from your own arguments before critiquing mine.
Now, as it stands, I'm at work and I don't have time to keep re-explaining things to you, so I'm just going to wish you well on your trip bouncing around the galaxy. Ta.
_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."
-XFG (no longer a moderator)
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Consequences of Undiagnosed early Autism |
08 Mar 2024, 4:44 pm |
OK bill would charge abortion recipients with murder |
14 Feb 2024, 12:04 pm |
French lawmakers make abortion a constitutional right |
04 Mar 2024, 7:31 pm |
SCOTUS abortion pill access hearing |
26 Mar 2024, 5:17 pm |