It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
So we can murder visiting noncitizens and illegal aliens now?
Citizenship is not the test of protection under the law.
Earlier in another thread you admitted a viable fetus is a sovereign being (ie has personhood), but quickly retreated when you realized what it meant for your dishonest arguments. Twisting the 14th amendment backwards to try to establish only born people are subject to the laws of the United States or entitled to the protection of those laws is equally bizarre.
originally posted by: JAGStorm
My kid was born late December. I remember the nurses with their big smiles saying he came just in time for us to claim him for the whole
year on taxes.
Well well well, now let's look at Alabama. If they are going to change when a person, is a person, shouldn't parents get to claim them while in utero?
Can't have it both ways right?
There are some countries that declare you 1 year old when you are born. Maybe that is the route Alabama is going.
“Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment—and that book explains that,” Gorsuch replied.
“Do you accept that?” Durbin asked.
“That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, Senator, yes,” Gorsuch answered firmly.
A fetus is not a person under New York law or under the State and Federal Constitutions. (United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62; Endresz v. Friedberg, 24 N Y 2d 478; Kelly v. Gregory, 282 App. Div. 542; Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397; Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309; Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144; Steinberg v. Brown, 321 F. Supp. 741; Rosen v. Louisiana State Bd. of Med. Examiners
A fetus is not a "person" pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which provide that no "person" shall be deprived of life without due process. (People v. Fein, 292 N. Y. 10; Endresz v. Friedberg, 24 N Y 2d 478; Woods v. Lancet, 303 N. Y. 349; Kelly v. Gregory, 282 App. Div. 542; Matter of Peabody, 5 N Y 2d 541; People v. Belous, 71 Cal. 2d 954, 397 U.S. 915; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479
. Whether a fetus is a "human being" and a "person" to be afforded a constitutional protection is a question of law and not fact, and no court, as a matter of law, has declared the fetus a person under the Constitution. (Rosen v. Louisiana State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 318 F. Supp. 1217; United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62
The occasions of State intervention extending benefit or protection to the fetus provide no support for the contention that the fetus has any constitutional rights. (People v. McGonegal, 136 N. Y. 62; Evans v. People, 49 N. Y. 86; Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535; Matter of Sampson, 29 N Y 2d 900; Application of President & Directors of Georgetown Coll., 331 F. 2d 1000, 377 U.S. 978; Endresz v. Friedberg, 24 N Y 2d 478; Kelly v. Gregory, 282 App. Div. 542
concerns a woman making a choice about her own body
" The concept that a corporation is an artificial person is a useful "legal fiction." It is a fiction because corporations obviously are not biological entities. However, the law finds it necessary to provide corporations with certain rights and responsibilities commonly held by people.
You neglect to mention that viable fetuses are in fact subject to state protections under current interpretation of the law, though currently not legally considered people.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RadioRobert
SCOTUS has ruled that a fetus has no constitutional right to life. Human fetuses aren't an endangered species, like the American Bald Eagle.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: olaru12
...because we have a history of not prosecuting murders committed by males in the US?
Not sure why you're playing the sexism card here, but you appear to be spitballing and flinging it in desperation.