4 ms·

This doesn't affect the reasoning. American women are indisputably citizens and people, whereas fetuses are not. The existence of this grey area doesn't preclu

This doesn't affect the reasoning. American women are indisputably citizens and people, whereas fetuses are not. The existence of this grey area doesn't preclude obvious constitutional rights.

brigandish 4y ago
> American women are indisputably citizens and people, whereas fetuses are not. Foetuses are disputably citizens and people. There's your grey area.
- Jason_Protell 4y ago
  Did you read my comment? I don't dispute the existence of the grey area.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Yes, I read your comment, thanks. You didn't appear to making reference to the same grey area that was referred to in the comment you responded to. It's not often that I see absolutism and the acknowledgement of a grey area within the same breath so do forgive my mistake, if it is one.
    - Jason_Protell 4y ago
      What absolutism are you talking about?
      - brigandish 4y ago
        > American women are indisputably citizens and people, whereas fetuses are not. It reads very black and white to me.
        Jason_Protell 4y ago
        Do you dispute that American women are citizens and people? Do you recognize that there isn't consensus about whether fetuses are citizens and people?
        brigandish 4y ago
        You could waste less of our time if you were either clearer in your writing, if you feel you've been misunderstood, or you just got to the point. Answering rhetorical questions though, nope.
        Jason_Protell 4y ago
        My claims are concise and straightforward, so I don't know what you're talking about. I also didn't ask any rhetorical questions. Like I said in another comment, I'm done with this conversation, have a nice day.
- deathanatos 4y ago
  I suppose you can dispute anything then, but the upthread comment is right, and the same amendment of the Constitution is pretty clear about it: > 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.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    You've only taken half of the statement, it was: > Foetuses are disputably citizens and people Citizens is one part, people is the other. Whether a foetus is a person, whether it has constitutional personhood, was argued by Texas in the original Roe v Wade case. You may also note that the difference between person and citizen has been debated many times before in constitutional law. From [1]: > Thirty years ago, Bickel made a statement about the relationship between citizenship and personhood in American constitutional law that is well known among scholars of immigration and citizenship. He said: “It has always been easier, it always will be easier, to think of someone as a noncitizen than to decide that he is a nonperson.” > What is expressed here is both a descriptive and normative claim about the significance of the category of citizenship in our constitutional system. Bickel argued that, as a historical matter, the Constitution has never set much stock by the category of citizenship; that one of the most disastrous aspects of Dred Scott was that it treated the denial of rights to slaves and free blacks as turning on their lack of citizenship; that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment came close to entrenching this mistake, constitutionally, via passage of the privileges or immunities clause of section 1, which might have appeared to make rights contingent upon citizenship; but that, in the end (by way of Slaughterhouse,7 which eviscerated the clause), “innocence was restored.” And Bickel concludes by expressing satisfaction with this state of affairs: “I find it gratifying … that we live under a Constitution to which the concept of citizenship matters very little.” In important ways, Bickel is descriptively right. True, citizenship status is still quite significant in a variety of settings, and conflicts between citizenship- and personhood-based groundings of rights persist in various contexts. Still, for a great many purposes, the “right to have rights” is not contingent on the possession of citizenship status. In the international arena, it is largely persons who are the subjects of human rights [1] https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/8/1/9/682631 https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/8/1/9/682631

This doesn't affect the reasoning. American women are indisputably citizens and people, whereas fetuses are not. The existence of this grey area doesn't preclude obvious constitutional rights.

brigandish 4y ago

> American women are indisputably citizens and people, whereas fetuses are not. Foetuses are disputably citizens and people. There's your grey area.

Jason_Protell 4y ago
Did you read my comment? I don't dispute the existence of the grey area.
- brigandish 4y ago
  Yes, I read your comment, thanks. You didn't appear to making reference to the same grey area that was referred to in the comment you responded to. It's not often that I see absolutism and the acknowledgement of a grey area within the same breath so do forgive my mistake, if it is one.
  - Jason_Protell 4y ago
    What absolutism are you talking about?
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > American women are indisputably citizens and people, whereas fetuses are not. It reads very black and white to me.
      - Jason_Protell 4y ago
        Do you dispute that American women are citizens and people? Do you recognize that there isn't consensus about whether fetuses are citizens and people?
        brigandish 4y ago
        You could waste less of our time if you were either clearer in your writing, if you feel you've been misunderstood, or you just got to the point. Answering rhetorical questions though, nope.
        Jason_Protell 4y ago
        My claims are concise and straightforward, so I don't know what you're talking about. I also didn't ask any rhetorical questions. Like I said in another comment, I'm done with this conversation, have a nice day.
deathanatos 4y ago
I suppose you can dispute anything then, but the upthread comment is right, and the same amendment of the Constitution is pretty clear about it: > 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.
- brigandish 4y ago
  You've only taken half of the statement, it was: > Foetuses are disputably citizens and people Citizens is one part, people is the other. Whether a foetus is a person, whether it has constitutional personhood, was argued by Texas in the original Roe v Wade case. You may also note that the difference between person and citizen has been debated many times before in constitutional law. From [1]: > Thirty years ago, Bickel made a statement about the relationship between citizenship and personhood in American constitutional law that is well known among scholars of immigration and citizenship. He said: “It has always been easier, it always will be easier, to think of someone as a noncitizen than to decide that he is a nonperson.” > What is expressed here is both a descriptive and normative claim about the significance of the category of citizenship in our constitutional system. Bickel argued that, as a historical matter, the Constitution has never set much stock by the category of citizenship; that one of the most disastrous aspects of Dred Scott was that it treated the denial of rights to slaves and free blacks as turning on their lack of citizenship; that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment came close to entrenching this mistake, constitutionally, via passage of the privileges or immunities clause of section 1, which might have appeared to make rights contingent upon citizenship; but that, in the end (by way of Slaughterhouse,7 which eviscerated the clause), “innocence was restored.” And Bickel concludes by expressing satisfaction with this state of affairs: “I find it gratifying … that we live under a Constitution to which the concept of citizenship matters very little.” In important ways, Bickel is descriptively right. True, citizenship status is still quite significant in a variety of settings, and conflicts between citizenship- and personhood-based groundings of rights persist in various contexts. Still, for a great many purposes, the “right to have rights” is not contingent on the possession of citizenship status. In the international arena, it is largely persons who are the subjects of human rights [1] https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/8/1/9/682631 https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/8/1/9/682631