Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 03, 2022

Under Georgia law, fetuses now have "full legal recognition" as living people. That means their parents can claim them as dependents on their tax returns -- even before delivery. The state's department of revenue said Monday that it would begin recognizing "any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat ... as eligible for the Georgia individual income tax dependent exemption" -- amounting to $3,000.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Any reason not to claim this every year and then say you had a spontaneous miscarriage on April 20?

#1 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-03 05:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Absurd but not surprising BS from the same people who claim Trump was cheated out of a second term.

#2 | Posted by cbob at 2022-08-03 05:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How do we get them ballots?

#3 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-08-03 05:45 PM | Reply

Do they count in the census?

#4 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-08-03 05:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Will there be a child under 0 admitted free with adult/mother policy{Rick Sanatorium may want to take it to the movies}

#5 | Posted by Scotty at 2022-08-03 05:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Georgian men should declare their sperm as dependents.

Each sperm has the potential to become a child.

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-03 06:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Tell me you don't understand human biology 101 without using those exact words.

#7 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-03 06:08 PM | Reply

Note to self: move to Georgia and declare all three of my --------- on taxes to be dependents.

#8 | Posted by Tor at 2022-08-03 06:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Because you're all no doubt wondering their names are Dee Zeeh and Nutz.

#9 | Posted by Tor at 2022-08-03 06:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Keep in mind that when an undocumented immigrant is pregnant, they are now carrying a US Citizen, per Georgia law. So, no longer have to worry about Anchor Babies, we have to worry about Anchor Zygotes.

#10 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-03 06:26 PM | Reply

Tell me you don't understand how US citizenship works, without using those exact words.

#11 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-03 06:30 PM | Reply

Do Dads pay child support from the time of conception?

#12 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2022-08-03 06:32 PM | Reply

You could try reading the article. In case you can't read, it's from the time "fetal" heartbeat is detected.

#13 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-03 06:34 PM | Reply

#10 Rapists are doing illegals a service, by impregnating them with a Real American Child.

Best part is, the Fetus is an American Person -- Even if the rapist is an illegal immigrant!

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-03 06:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You're not too bright sentinel:

Under Georgia law, fetuses now have "full legal recognition" as living people.

FULL

a zygote is now a living person, thus a citizen

#15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-03 06:36 PM | Reply

Citizenship laws specify in order to be qualified as a citizen as a result of birth location one must first be born on American soil.

Curiously enough John McCain wasn't considered born on American soil when he was born.

#16 | Posted by Tor at 2022-08-03 06:40 PM | Reply

You're not bright at all, PravdaPain. Tourists and immigrants have full legal recognition as living people. That doesn't automatically make them US Citizens. FFS.

#17 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-03 06:40 PM | Reply

Sentinel, my dear, if they give birth on US soil the children are US Citizens. that is a simple fact. the concept is called an anchor baby where an undocumented immigrant sneaks in, has their child on US soil and thus the undocumented immigrant is anchored to America by their baby

Georgia just threw that out the window by considering anything with a heartbeat a full-fledged human being with all the rights of a human being, FULL LEGAL RECOGNITION obviously follows

#18 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-03 06:44 PM | Reply

Can any legal scholars parse this for me?

(3) 'Medical emergency' means a condition in which an abortion is necessary in order to
98 prevent the death of the pregnant woman or the substantial and irreversible physical
99 impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. No such greater risk shall
100 be deemed to exist if it is based on a diagnosis or claim of a mental or emotional
101 condition of the pregnant woman or that the pregnant woman will purposefully engage
102 in conduct which she intends to result in her death or in substantial and irreversible
103 physical impairment of a major bodily function

The part about the no such greater risk. I THINK that means if the woman is suicidal she can get an abortion.

There will be alot of suicidal pregnant women in GA

#19 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-03 06:45 PM | Reply

Ahhh from what I can gather suicidal ideation or attempts at suicide are NOT justification to permit abortion in this law

Cruelty IS the point.

Republicans are SCUM

#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-03 06:55 PM | Reply

#19 it means the opposite.

It means if you say

"If you don't let me have an abortion I will kill my baby and them myself" -- maybe because the father is your father and you still live at his house

you still can't have an abortion.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-03 06:57 PM | Reply

You figured it out.

And the crux of the earlier provision is " substantial and irreversible," something that is likely intentionally vague, undefined, and will result in hospital legal staff erring on the side of not providing abortions.

#22 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-03 06:58 PM | Reply

Funny thing is that they will allow prescribing anti-depressants to pregnant women who are depressed about an unwanted pregnancy, which will harm the fetus.

#23 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-03 07:00 PM | Reply

Let's not go that far. Many pregnant women suffer from debilitating depression and take anti-depressants that are generally considered safe for the fetus.

That doesn't reduce how ------ up Republicans are.

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2022-08-03 07:01 PM | Reply

"Sentinel, my dear, if they give birth on US soil the children are US Citizens. that is a simple fact. the concept is called an anchor baby where an undocumented immigrant sneaks in, has their child on US soil and thus the undocumented immigrant is anchored to America by their baby

"Georgia just threw that out the window by considering anything with a heartbeat a full-fledged human being with all the rights of a human being, FULL LEGAL RECOGNITION obviously follows"

*pats PP on the head*

There, there. Don't worry your ... little head. This concept is obviously too big for you to understand.

If it makes you feel better to pretend I'm the idiot for understanding how simple logic works, you go right and keep on believing that people who empirically haven't been born or naturalized yet have already been born or naturalized, and that your warped conclusion "follows".

#25 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-03 07:32 PM | Reply

Sentinel, as usual you're dead wrong. No one is arguing that Georgia is right by science or former laws. They're passing a NEW DEFINITION of what a person is:

The State of Georgia, applying reasoned judgment to the full body of modern medical science (sic), recognizes the benefits of providing full legal recognition to an unborn child above the minimum requirements of federal law;

It shall be the policy of the State of Georgia to recognize unborn children as natural persons.

'Natural person' means any human being including an unborn child.

www.legis.ga.gov

Your obstinance is astounding. But your refusal to accept what been put right before your eyes brings into question whether you have comprehension problems or simply an ego that refuses to accept when you're wrong.

#26 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-03 07:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sentinel, you just piss me off to no end. You get on your high horse and denigrate other posters who're right and then add insult to injury by continuing to pontificate completely oblivious to your own mendacity.

Seriously, just stop being such an ass. You are not the most learned or intelligent person here. Keep that in mind when you needlessly attack others for being right.

#27 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-03 07:51 PM | Reply

I'm the idiot
#25 | POSTED BY SSENTINEL

Yes. Agreed.

Hope you found that to be cathartic.

#28 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-03 08:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

LOL. It's like a DS convention in this thread.

#29 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-03 08:20 PM | Reply

"Undocumented" immigrants are recognized as persons with human rights. That does not make them US Citizens. My dears.

In order to be a U.S. citizen, you have to be either born or naturalized as one. Georgia recognizes unborn children as persons. You really have to be special to think unborn means "born".

#30 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-03 08:27 PM | Reply

By the way, SS, was #7 directed at me?

Are you implying sperm don't have the potential to become a child?

Do explain.

#31 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-03 08:38 PM | Reply

That does not make them US Citizens.

It does make them "persons" under and subject to the laws of Georgia though. At some point in the future - if these fetal personhood laws become more ubiquitous - there will be court challenges as to whether in-vitro lives are considered persons federally.

An embryo of an undocumented person (and all of this is speculative and not mentioned in the bill's language) who intends to stay in Georgia is a "person" under Georgia law as stated unequivocally above. If the zygote was fertilized within the boundaries of Georgia and established as such through medical and physical records, then that zygote - in Georgia - would be treated equally as any other Georgian.

Truthfully, it really doesn't matter whether the federal government confers citizenship on the fetus until actual birth as long as its mother remains in the state and under the jurisdiction of Georgia law.

#32 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-03 08:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You really have to be special to think unborn means "born".

You really have to be removed from reality to think that those writing these laws are still making that distinction when doing so undermines the entire purpose of their laws.

The purpose is to establish that in-vitro life is equal to ex-vitro life, ie. THE SAME. Of course it isn't, but that isn't stopping these people. We're talking Earth II now, not reality.

Unborn and born are words, nothing more nothing less. I almost added a thought in my last post that we may find ourselves creating a new designation for such distinctions.

When you base your laws on establishing 14th Amendment protections for in-vitro life, the niceties of word definitions usually become moot once courts get involved. Equal means equal. Born now becomes a term extended to fertilization in the eyes of the people pushing these laws. There are no two ways about it.

Again, I agree with you, but the intent of the law is clear regardless of what normal convention and science says.

#33 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-03 08:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In order to be a U.S. citizen, you have to be either born or naturalized as one.

In order to be a dependent you used to be have to be born.

Georgia recognizes unborn children as persons.

Persons are recognized as citizens.

#34 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-03 09:04 PM | Reply

"Persons are can be recognized as citizens."

Those words are not necessarily legally synonymous. Take the Constitution's commands on taking the census. It mentions "persons" and that reference explicitly refers to citizens and non-citizens alike. Also references in the Bill of Rights mention "persons", which includes even non-citizens under certain amendments' protections from the state.

#35 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-03 09:20 PM | Reply

Georgia's Law:

"...the benefits of providing full legal recognition to an unborn child..."

The law also quotes the 14th Amendment, specifically:

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

If you can't comprehend the magnitude of the impact of these 2 phrases in the same law, you are an idiot. If you can't imagine the invasion of privacy this will have on women, you are an abject moron.

Ironic they use the 14th Amendment to DEPRIVE women of their bodily autonomy.

Let's consider some of the implications:

Child Support-how do you even establish paternity at 6 weeks? Anyone who has watched Maury Povitch recognizes the problems with THAT
Miscarriages-the police will have a legal obligation to investigate every miscarriage as a potential murder (unless the pro-lifers are hypocrites)
Census
Bodily autonomy-every pregnant woman will be subject to the state for how they treat their body
Child Protective Services will now have to be extended to the unborn
Incarceration-Can a pregnant woman be incarcerated? since the unborn person did not commit the crime, they should not be punished for their mother's crime-perhaps we can force delivery of inmates and give the newborn to Child Protective services
Taxes-Miscarriages will have to be investigated for tax fraud

and these are just some of the issues that pop to mind

#36 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-03 09:50 PM | Reply

Hardyhar
Nothing says "I'm a small government conservative" quite like creating a mountain of government bureaucracy

Tell me you don't understand the irony without using those exact words

#37 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2022-08-03 10:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#37

Unless it's saying that individual citizen's rights should be left up to the State, like with women and abortion.

They are at least consistent in their hypocrisy.

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2022-08-03 10:13 PM | Reply

PS. Brian Kemp is tied to these Georgia laws which basically gives government control over Georgia women's bodies and health decisions. Odds are even many Republican women in Georgia won't agree with this stance and these laws as Brian Kemp does.

Stacy Abrams was just handed Georgia on a silver platter as long as women's own health autonomy is on the ballot - which it absolutely is.

#39 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-03 10:34 PM | Reply

So you Don't have to be birthed to be born any longer?
Is there a limit of time for gestation?

#40 | Posted by Scotty at 2022-08-04 12:17 AM | Reply

Tony, Since you ARE apparently the smartest person in this room, can you please clarify the conclusion you came to? Are we all in agreement that a unborn child in Georgia is NOT a United States citizen according to the 14th amendment?

#41 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 02:31 AM | Reply

"Are you implying sperm don't have the potential to become a child?"

Until they join with an egg, at which point they are no longer sperm, they do not.

#42 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 03:29 AM | Reply

I will admit I was being a little facetious in my initial comment about anchor zygotes, but given the GA law argues that the 14th Amendment applies to zygotes, it isn't that much of a stretch to see that someone will make the argument that the fetus of an undocumented immigrant is an anchor fetus. GA is providing all sorts of rights to the zygote, why not citizenship.

Miranda, the GA law states, for the first time that I am aware of that a zygote is a person provided with full legal recognition. And as far as I understand a state does not have the authority to declare someone a US citizen. Though I imagine we are in uncharted territory here. And this is certainly a concern if a federal fetal heartbeat law was every passed. Never before has a zygote entitled a woman to receive a child tax credit or be counted in a census. As Tony pointed out, it is not too much of a leap to redefine born as fertilized.

While citizenship is certainly an extreme outcome of fetal personhood, the issues I identified in 36 are far more likely responses to this law and certainly of more immediate impact.

I will state that it is telling that the anchor fetus concept draws more of a response from certain posters (and that is not directed at you miranda) than all of the other impacts of the law.

#43 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 06:17 AM | Reply

So you Don't have to be birthed to be born any longer?
Is there a limit of time for gestation?

#40 | POSTED BY SCOTTY

According to GA law that would be heartbeat. While not necessarily BORN, but PERSON with ALL of its attendant impacts.

And if you don't understand the scary results of providing personhood to a zygote you are not very bright.

#44 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 06:20 AM | Reply

Consider for example a car accident which results in a woman miscarrying. Should the driver be charged with vehicular manslaughter? Should the insurance company pay death benefits?

Consider stillbirths where the cause of death is unknown. Should the woman's behavior throughout her pregnancy be subject to investigation by law enforcement?

Zygotes can now bring lawsuits.

IVF will likely become illegal since it now involves embryos with rights. You can't just discard or freeze a human being now can you?

If you go out of state to obtain an abortion and return to GA it seems to me you can and will be tried for murder.

Again, these are simply a small list of the impacts of fetal personhood

#45 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 06:36 AM | Reply

More language from the GA Law:

"Health records shall be available to the district attorney of the judicial circuit in which the hospital or health facility is located act of abortion occurs or the woman upon whom an abortion is performed resides."

Will some legal expert please tell me this doesn't mean that the hospitals will be copying the district attorney on the records of any woman seeking an abortion!!

#46 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 06:40 AM | Reply

Consider a pregnant woman who divorced her husband and leaves the state. Can she be charged with kidnapping? How will that effect the woman's rights in a custody battle?

#47 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 06:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Any reason not to claim this every year and then say you had a spontaneous miscarriage on April 20?

#1 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-03 05:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now pregnant women can drive in the HOV lane.

#48 | Posted by Nixon at 2022-08-04 07:10 AM | Reply

Are we all in agreement that a unborn child in Georgia is NOT a United States citizen according to the 14th amendment?

I believe that Truth has already laid this out almost exactly as I understand it. The answer is no, the United States does not yet recognize a Georgia zygote as a citizen, but that is qualified by the fact that within the state of Georgia, an in-vitro "person" has the exact same citizenship rights as an ex-vitro person, so it could be argued that that reality is a distinction without a difference.

IOW, I'm struggling to think of a single thing an in-vitro person in Georgia wouldn't have - as a matter of actual use or need while in the in-vitro state - as it regards US citizenship rights that an ex vitro person has, isn't that correct? I think it is because the second the fetus becomes an independently breathing ex-vitro person, it's an unquestioned US citizen.

#49 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 08:20 AM | Reply

Health records shall be available to the district attorney of the judicial circuit in which the hospital or health facility is located act of abortion occurs or the woman upon whom an abortion is performed resides.

As I read this, Georgia just took away women's HIPAA protections, bigfooting federal law in opposition to the Supremacy Clause. I'd also argue that medical records which can be used to bring criminal charges must first pass 4th Amendment requirements placed on LEO, right? So where does the probable cause come from to subpoena any individual woman's health records? What if a woman never goes to a healthcare provider and documents that she's pregnant? Just how can the state determine pregnancy status unless each woman self declares?

All of this legislation is an affront to the unquestionable personal protections from undue search and seizure enshrined in the Constitution. Pro forced birth people haven't really thought this out past their need to control the bodies of women for the sake of their own closely held religious beliefs, full stop - which is an affront to the affected's own 1st Amendment rights if their personal or religious practices find early term abortion wholly consistent with their own closely held beliefs.

#50 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 08:33 AM | Reply

If she can't have an abortion, can the woman sue the fetus for divorce or emancipation?
Can the fetus be charged with enslaving the woman?

#51 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2022-08-04 08:38 AM | Reply

50

In the past, medical records have been a no no. Courts have not allowed that.

#52 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-04 08:50 AM | Reply

In the past, medical records have been a no no. Courts have not allowed that.

Which is my point. How can states even determine the pregnancy status of any woman for law enforcement purposes without first violating existing federal and constitutional law?

#53 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 08:56 AM | Reply

#49, #50 Tony

That's a lot of words when " I'm Sorry, I was incorrect." would have sufficed. ( to Sentinel for #26 and. #27). The TH troll started it, but you piled on, and that is disapponting. i have a lot of respect for you and expected better.

If it makes you feel better to pretend I'm the idiot for understanding how simple logic works, you go right and keep on believing that people who empirically haven't been born or naturalized yet have already been born or naturalized, and that your warped conclusion "follows".

#25 | POSTED BY SENTINEL AT 2022-08-03 07:32 PM | FLAG:

Sentinel, as usual you're dead wrong. No one is arguing that Georgia is right by science or former laws. They're passing a NEW DEFINITION of what a person is:

The State of Georgia, applying reasoned judgment to the full body of modern medical science (sic), recognizes the benefits of providing full legal recognition to an unborn child above the minimum requirements of federal law;
It shall be the policy of the State of Georgia to recognize unborn children as natural persons.

'Natural person' means any human being including an unborn child.
www.legis.ga.gov

Your obstinance is astounding. But your refusal to accept what been put right before your eyes brings into question whether you have comprehension problems or simply an ego that refuses to accept when you're wrong.
#26 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2022-08-03 07:47 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

Sentinel, you just piss me off to no end. You get on your high horse and denigrate other posters who're right and then add insult to injury by continuing to pontificate completely oblivious to your own mendacity.

Seriously, just stop being such an ass. You are not the most learned or intelligent person here. Keep that in mind when you needlessly attack others for being right.

#27 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2022-08-03 07:51 PM | FLAG:

#54 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 09:36 AM | Reply

That's a lot of words when " I'm Sorry, I was incorrect."

I have nothing to be sorry for, though you do for wrongly interpreting my CLEAR WORDS that you quoted.

Sentinel, as usual you're dead wrong. No one is arguing that Georgia is right by science or former laws. They're passing a NEW DEFINITION of what a person is:
I addressed personhood and that's what I stated that he was wrong about. Did I ever use the word citizenship in my post? Hell no!

The language I quote even specifically noted that Georgia's law "recognizes the benefits of providing full legal recognition to an unborn child above the minimum requirements of federal law."

My point was crystal clear and directed precisely as I stated. Sentinel claimed that Georgia could not define a not-yet-born person as having the same rights as a born person. He was dead wrong as are you for failing to note my expressed purpose and distinctions.

#55 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 09:49 AM | Reply

Tony, to recap, TH was flat out wrong insisting that the GA law made the fetus a US citizen, and Sentinel was plainly correct that the fetus couldn't be a citizen because it wasn't born ... .. But you sided with the wrong position and doubled downin several posts, attacking the "correct" poster, before gently backpedaling with a pile of words but no admission that you were wrong, so back at you with your own words:

Your obstinance is astounding. But your refusal to accept what been put right before your eyes brings into question whether you have comprehension problems or simply an ego that refuses to accept when you're wrong.
#26 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2022-08-03 07:47 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

#56 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 09:50 AM | Reply

Damn Miranda, turn off your frippin italics.

#57 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 09:51 AM | Reply

TH was flat out wrong insisting that the GA law made the fetus a US citizen

Show where I stated that a fetus was a US citizen. I never made that assertion. You need to learn reading comprehension Miranda.

Post my quote, or apologize for putting your words into my mouth.

#58 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 09:53 AM | Reply

Which is my point. How can states even determine the pregnancy status of any woman for law enforcement purposes without first violating existing federal and constitutional law?

Remember the Missouri Republican Health Director that tracked women's periods? Or when the Trump admin tracked migrant girl's periods?
www.washingtonpost.com
www.harpersbazaar.com

Are we all in agreement that a unborn child in Georgia is NOT a United States citizen according to the 14th amendment?

The GOP has had as a main plank the expansion of the Fourteenth Amendment to include citizenship to an unborn fetus. I traced that back to 1984 GOP platform. This law is one more step to that end.

Ever since then, with various rhetorical flourishes, the platform has contained the same four elements: 1) the unborn child has a "fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed"; 2) endorsement of a "human life" constitutional amendment; 3) a call for judges who "respect human life"; and 4) new laws to "make clear" that the fetus is a "person" under the 14th Amendment. Paul Ryan has co-sponsored such legislation, declaring that the fetus is a "person."

So it's a bit puzzling that people are so shocked and dismayed that this year's GOP platform contains no exceptions for rape or ------ or to protect the health " or even the life " of a woman. The anti-abortion plank of the Republican platform has never contained an explicit exception for any of these situations.


www.latimes.com

This is the GOP. Women are nothing but brood mares.

#59 | Posted by YAV at 2022-08-04 09:54 AM | Reply

My point was crystal clear and directed precisely as I stated. Sentinel claimed that Georgia could not define a not-yet-born person as having the same rights as a born person. He was dead wrong as are you for failing to note my expressed purpose and distinctions.

#55 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2022-08-04 09:49 AM | FLAG:

No Sentinel didn't he was explicitly talking about US Citizenship when you jumped on him. Maybe you need to review the thread. At least then you can see where you erred and admit it to yourself, even if your ego won't allow you to admit it to others.

#60 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 09:56 AM | Reply

Again, without the confusing italics:

I have nothing to be sorry for, though you do for wrongly interpreting my CLEAR WORDS that you quoted.

Sentinel, as usual you're dead wrong. No one is arguing that Georgia is right by science or former laws. They're passing a NEW DEFINITION of what a person is:
I addressed personhood and that's what I stated that he was wrong about. Did I ever use the word citizenship in my post? Hell no!

The language I quote even specifically noted that Georgia's law "recognizes the benefits of providing full legal recognition to an unborn child above the minimum requirements of federal law."

My point was crystal clear and directed precisely as I stated. Sentinel claimed that Georgia could not define a not-yet-born person as having the same rights as a born person. He was dead wrong as are you for failing to note my expressed purpose and distinctions.

#61 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 09:56 AM | Reply

Tell me you don't understand how US citizenship works, without using those exact words.

#11 | POSTED BY SENTINEL AT 2022-08-03 06:30 PM | FLAG:

You're not too bright sentinel:

Under Georgia law, fetuses now have "full legal recognition" as living people.

FULL

a zygote is now a living person, thus a citizen

#15 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2022-08-03 06:36 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

You're not bright at all, PravdaPain. Tourists and immigrants have full legal recognition as living people. That doesn't automatically make them US Citizens. FFS.

#17 | POSTED BY SENTINEL AT 2022-08-03 06:40 PM | FLAG:

Sentinel, my dear, if they give birth on US soil the children are US Citizens. that is a simple fact. the concept is called an anchor baby where an undocumented immigrant sneaks in, has their child on US soil and thus the undocumented immigrant is anchored to America by their baby

Georgia just threw that out the window by considering anything with a heartbeat a full-fledged human being with all the rights of a human being, FULL LEGAL RECOGNITION obviously follows

#18 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2022-08-03 06:44 PM | FLAG:

Cruelty IS the point.

Republicans are SCUM

#20 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2022-08-03 06:55 PM | FLAG:
Tony, as you would say, here are the salient parts, the posts you were responding to The argument you jumped on the wrong side of was about whether unborn children had U.S. Citizenship

"Sentinel, my dear, if they give birth on US soil the children are US Citizens. that is a simple fact. the concept is called an anchor baby where an undocumented immigrant sneaks in, has their child on US soil and thus the undocumented immigrant is anchored to America by their baby

"Georgia just threw that out the window by considering anything with a heartbeat a full-fledged human being with all the rights of a human being, FULL LEGAL RECOGNITION obviously follows"

*pats PP on the head*

There, there. Don't worry your ... little head. This concept is obviously too big for you to understand.

If it makes you feel better to pretend I'm the idiot for understanding how simple logic works, you go right and keep on believing that people who empirically haven't been born or naturalized yet have already been born or naturalized, and that your warped conclusion "follows".

#25 | POSTED BY SENTINEL AT 2022-08-03 07:32 PM | FLAG:

#62 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 10:04 AM | Reply

Just own it already, Miranda7. Do as you said i #60.

#63 | Posted by YAV at 2022-08-04 10:07 AM | Reply

If you want to discuss the citizenship of Georgia fetuses, then answer the question I asked above:

Name any right of US citizenship that an in-vitro Georgian might need/use that isn't bestowed upon said unborn fetus by the new Georgia law? Name one.

The law bestows 14th Amendment rights upon the fetus which dictates that it be treated equally to all other citizens. As a practical matter, what US citizenship rights is a Georgia fetus denied in-vitro that it unquestionably will have once it leaves the womb?

In my opinion, neither you nor Sentinel is using common sense as it regards the line you're both drawing. US citizenship for an in-vitro fetus isn't a real thing except for the protections and legal rights the fetus is given but other persons have to defend and protect for it. And those rights and protections are exactly the same US citizens retain in or outside of Georgia.

#64 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 10:07 AM | Reply

For the final time, THIS is the only sentence I responded to with my initial reply - and I REPOSTED the sentence before I started my response:

If it makes you feel better to pretend I'm the idiot for understanding how simple logic works, you go right and keep on believing that people who empirically haven't been born or naturalized yet have already been born or naturalized, and that your warped conclusion "follows".
And I directed my answer to the question of personhood, not citizenship, and I criticized Sentinel for failure to recognize that indeed Georgia was bestowing equal personhood rights to "people who empirically haven't been born or naturalized yet...".

And that's all I said.

#65 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 10:13 AM | Reply

Yeah, the quotes get confusing. It is especially hard to do on an iPad. Instead, I will once again urge you (Tony) to read the thread again from the top. No, you did t use the word citizenship in your post ... ..but you did repeatedly denigrate Sentinel for being "wrong" and his posts were about ... drumroll ... .. CItizENSHIP ... ..and you now begrudgingly admit he was right ... .but you won't apologize or acknowledge you were wrong. I thought you were a man of character but ---- like this convinces me you aren't

As for TH, at least he/she admitted to being "facetious" if not wrong.

#66 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 10:16 AM | Reply

I lied, I will respond again after reading Miranda's C&P.

Just what effing difference does it make whether a fetus is considered a US citizen in-vitro or not? If it dies before birth what extra benefits would it receive if given the citizenship designation? None that I can think of. And once it's ex-vitro it's an automatic citizen, correct?

The reason I didn't respond to the citizenship nature of Sentinel's response is because it's completely non-sensical and totally irrelevant as a matter of reality. If Georgia gives the heartbeating zygote equal rights to independent persons then the federal government's designation of the fetus' existence for those first 9 months is meaningless!

The only thing that matters is personhood, and that is what I addressed.

#67 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 10:24 AM | Reply

I want to clarify something
The ga law creates a new class of person protected by the 14th amendment
That is specifically stated in the law
That means all of the protections of the 14th amendment apply to the unborn- the ramifications of which are enormous
The argument that citizenship applies to the unborn is actually being argued and considered by those writing and fighting fetal personhood laws because there is no logical reason to exclude the unborn if you consider the unborn as persons
Birth becomes an arbitrary point in the life of a person
I understand it is problematic for some but the debate is an inherent part of the fetal personhood concept
And again while it is seemingly a far fetched notion laws like Georgia law are the beginning or a mid stepping stone to that result

#68 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 10:24 AM | Reply

If it makes you feel better to pretend I'm the idiot for understanding how simple logic works, you go right and keep on believing that people who empirically haven't been born or naturalized yet have already been born or naturalized, and that your warped conclusion "follows".

And I directed my answer to the question of personhood, not citizenship, and I criticized Sentinel for failure to recognize that indeed Georgia was bestowing equal personhood rights to "people who empirically haven't been born or naturalized yet...".
And that's all I said.

#65 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2022-08-04 10:13 AM | FLAG:
Sentinel didn't say ANYhnG about personhood ... he was talking about CITIZENSHIP, but you can retroactively move the goalposts instead of admitting you were wrong, or maybe you misunderstood, or just that you didn't read the argument about CUTIZENSHIP that you were responding to when you backed TH and denigrated Sentinel.

#69 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 10:28 AM | Reply

Does the lack of federal recognition of in-vitro US citizenship affect Georgia's declaration that heartbeating zygotes are now considered the legal equal to ex-vitro persons with the same constitutional rights and protections afforded all Georgia citizens?

No?

Then it doesn't fecking matter, does it?

Effectively, in Georgia a zygote with a heartbeat is treated by law as any other US citizen living in the state of Georgia, yes or no? And exactly what US citizen rights does the same zygote NOT retain in the state of Georgia? Will the state dictate to the host of its as-yet-unborn person to protect that person's equal right to life?

As I stated twice, US citizenship is a distinction without a difference, because the birthed child is a citizen and the unbirthed child has the exact same rights as a citizen regardless of whether the federal government designates it as such. The designation is meaningless for an in-vitro person.

And so is your argument.

#70 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 10:34 AM | Reply

In my opinion, neither you nor Sentinel is using common sense as it regards the line you're both drawing. US citi

#64 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2022-08-04 10:07 AM | FLAG:

Back on topic. I haven't drawn any line or commented on this topic at all, so I don't know where you came up with that. I agree with the SUBSTANCE of your remarks.

My issue was entirely with you personally, because of the way you handled yourself with regards to the "citizenship " argument between TH and Sentinel

#71 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 10:38 AM | Reply

Sentinel didn't say ANYhnG about personhood

You have a reading comprehension problem. Sentinel delineated between "born" and "haven't been born". It's there in black and white. That is a personhood issue, not a citizenship issue.

Citizenship is meaningless in the context of zygotes with heartbeats, don't you get that yet?

I want you to answer the question you keep avoiding: Just what does US citizenship bestow upon a heartbeating zygote that Georgia law doesn't? What does citizenship even mean for an in vitro fetus?

In Georgia, any heartbeating zygote is treated equally with every other person within the state and afforded the same rights and protections as all Georgia citizens.

#72 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 10:42 AM | Reply

"Keep in mind that when an undocumented immigrant is pregnant, they are now carrying a US Citizen, per Georgia law.
#10 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2022-08-03 06:26 PM

For those who are mentally impaired, this is the specific claim I was responding to in this thread.

#73 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 10:43 AM | Reply

And to be more precise Miranda, let me quote Sentinel again:

... you go right and keep on believing that people who empirically haven't been born or naturalized yet have already been born or naturalized, and that your warped conclusion "follows".
"Or" separates born from naturalized, making the two concepts independant, not joined together as one topic. He could have used the word "and" and then you'd be on firmer ground criticizing my responses.

But that isn't what he did, and that is not what I responded to. Words have meanings, and I take that seriously. And if you choose to take issue with my understanding of etymology then you're going to have to show me where my interpretations are wrong as a matter of language usage.

#74 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 10:50 AM | Reply

#73

Did I quote you precisely in #74 Sentinel? Am I wrong about your use of "or" in the quoted sentence? Am I wrong for interpreting that sentence as it was written - which you claim is NOT how you meant for it to be interpreted?

You untied "born" from "naturalization," nee citizenship. It wasn't something I invented, it was something the words you wrote mean in plain English.

#75 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 10:53 AM | Reply

LMFAO.

If you're trolling, I have to say you're putting a lot of effort into it.

#76 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 10:56 AM | Reply

#76

I don't troll.

#77 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 10:57 AM | Reply

The phrase "born or naturalized" comes directly from the text of the 14th Amendment.

#78 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 10:59 AM | Reply

"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."

#79 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 11:00 AM | Reply

Again Sentinel, you too refuse to answer the simple question.

Will a heartbeating zygote in Georgia be given the very same rights and protections afforded all Georgia citizens under both the state and federal constitutions?

Yes or no.

#80 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 11:03 AM | Reply

This is the first time you've asked the question, so you're lying when you claim I refused to answer it again.

The answer to that question is clearly no, under the federal constitution. I'm not familiar with Georgia's state constitution, so I can't speak to that, but it's irrelevant to the point that you jumped all over me for.

#81 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 11:08 AM | Reply

#79

Thank you for pointing that out. Then that wording will form the basis for the upcoming litigation over whether zygotes in Georgia are indeed US citizens. Frankly, until a legal determination is made, the answer to the question is unknowable.

And yet again, Georgia's law has changed the definition of born as it's understood in the US Constitution - meaning ex vitro - to now be interpreted IN Georgia as the moment a fetal heartbeat can be observed.

So again, to your assertion Georgia indeed has changed its definition of what a state citizen is. Only time will tell what happens at the federal level, but to assume that the status quo will prevail flies in the face that Georgia and other states are busily redefining "born" to be a legal equivalent almost to the point of fertilization.

#82 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 11:10 AM | Reply

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if all of the following requirements are met at the time of the person's birth:

The person is a child of a U.S. citizen parent;
The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession before the person's birth in accordance with the applicable provision; and
The person meets all other applicable requirements under either INA 301 or INA 309.

www.uscis.gov

#83 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-08-04 11:12 AM | Reply

The answer to that question is clearly no, under the federal constitution.

What federal constitutional protections won't be afforded a fetus in Georgia? Georgia's constitution includes all the federal protections as well, so what is the fetus lacking?

Hint, there are none that any fetus would actually use prior to its actual birth.

Your point is moot, and you can't even see that. Almost every benefit of US citizenship can only be realized ex vitro - which the zygote will be once it leaves the womb. So while it's in the womb, it has every protection that every other US citizen has for their zygotes. The actual bestowment of "citizenship" means nothing until the child is born and at that moment it becomes a US citizen.

#84 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 11:16 AM | Reply

"So again, to your assertion Georgia indeed has changed its definition of what a state citizen is. "

What does that have to with my assertion? You're just making weird non-sequiturs.

The Georgia law doesn't even have anything to do state citizenship, either, since it would also apply to anyone passing through Georgia.

#85 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 11:17 AM | Reply

"Keep in mind that when an undocumented immigrant is pregnant, they are now carrying a US Citizen, per Georgia law.
#10 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2022-08-03 06:26 PM

Again, for the mentally impaired, and the extremely bloody-minded, this is the specific claim I was responding to in this thread.

#86 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 11:19 AM | Reply

Now pregnant women can drive in the HOV lane.
#48 | POSTED BY NIXON AT 2022-08-04 07:10 AM | REPLY

In addition to road side sobriety tests there will now be road pregnancy tests.

#87 | Posted by eightfifteenpm at 2022-08-04 11:33 AM | Reply

#66

Read #32 as many times as you need to. That is my response to the citizenship issue - which was not the point of my criticism. I am not incorrect in my interpretation of Sentinel's quotations. He did not attribute his language to the Constitution, he wrote it as if he was the speaker. My interpretation and response was not incorrect as to the dictionary meanings of the words used and understood in simple conversation.

Now, if the intent in those words was not what Sentinel was trying to convey, that is not my fault for my understanding of them.

#88 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 11:36 AM | Reply

Does that mean a fetus has 2nd amendment rights?

Great! Now I just have to figure out how I get one of the tiny guns I've developed into the little buggers hands.

#89 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2022-08-04 11:38 AM | Reply

What does that have to with my assertion?

I worded that incorrectly.

...you go right and keep on believing that people who empirically haven't been born or naturalized yet have already been born or naturalized...
That quote is what I took issue with because Georgia indeed passed a law where those who haven't been born yet are treated as equal to those who have been born - something you ignorantly mocked in the quote above.

That is why I went off, and that is where you're wrong. And my point had nothing to do with citizenship status, it had solely to do with personhood status - the only topic of my criticism.

#90 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 11:42 AM | Reply

How will the Georgia department of revenue prevent fraudulent abuse? Require an ultrasound attached to the tax return? I can see this getting out of hand quickly.

On a related issue for federal tax returns, the IRS has said, "In order to claim a newborn child as a dependent, state or local law must treat the child as having been born alive, and there must be proof of a live birth shown by an official document like a birth certificate. Due to these requirements, you may not claim a stillborn child as a dependent."

#91 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-08-04 12:24 PM | Reply

So you Don't have to be birthed to be born any longer?
Is there a limit of time for gestation?

#40 | POSTED BY SCOTTY

According to GA law that would be heartbeat. While not necessarily BORN, but PERSON with ALL of its attendant impacts.

And if you don't understand the scary results of providing personhood to a zygote you are not very bright.

#44 | Posted by truthhurts

So your answer is gestation ends with the heartbeat? And you infer I'm dim for something I never stated.Grow up loser.
In close to 20 years at this site since teaching Boaz a lot is 2 words not 1 he still hasn't caught on.Maybe you should realize your not changing any ones point of view and your grandiose opinion of yourself is shared by few if any.

#92 | Posted by Scotty at 2022-08-04 12:44 PM | Reply

OMG my head is spinning ... ... its real simple Tony.. TH said the new Georgia law makes unborn fetuses U.s. Citizens. Sentinel said it does not. . That was the OBVIOUS context of the argument. Sentinal was right, TH was wrong. YOU were wrong to jump on sentinel, telling him was wrong and criticizing him for saying TH was wrong.for being wrong. It's that effing simple.

Now you spin-off a few thousand words of total -------- because you just can't admit you were wrong and apologize like a man. I used to respect you, but you've just completely destroyed your credibility.

#93 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 12:45 PM | Reply

If and when this Georgia definition becomes a case which gets to the Supreme Court, will the SC redefine the meaning of person in the 14th amendment?

#94 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-08-04 12:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Meanwhile no one can figure out what the hell your position is on Roe V Wade, or doctors refusing to provide abortions because the GOP has gone off the deep end, like Georgia, in declaring a fetus, even if it's no viable, a full person.

#95 | Posted by YAV at 2022-08-04 12:53 PM | Reply

#94 - that's a huge "HOLY ----!" right there.

#96 | Posted by YAV at 2022-08-04 12:54 PM | Reply

Sorry, Miranda, but you are incorrect. Again, I was being a tad facetious with my original post, BUT the issue is not nearly as cut and dried as you believe.

news.bloomberglaw.com

It's unclear under state personhood laws whether a fetus would be considered a citizen. If so, deporting a person who gets pregnant while detained becomes more complicated, Chatman said.

How fights over personhood play out in contexts beyond abortion will depend on judicial interpretation.

The issue of what "born" in the 14th Amendment has not been adjudicated given the concept of fetal personhood.

You are absolutely correct that the clear and plain language interpretation of BORN means after birth. BUT Georgia has created a new definition of PERSON entitled to 14th Amendment protections! And how the singular issue of citizenship applies will have to be adjudicated.

Of course, that solely touches on the issue of an anchor fetus. The ramifications of applying 14th Amendment protections to zygotes are MONUMENTAL!

#97 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 12:55 PM | Reply

If and when this Georgia definition becomes a case which gets to the Supreme Court, will the SC redefine the meaning of person in the 14th amendment?

#94 | POSTED BY EL_BUSCADOR

I honestly don't know how you can logically differentiate fetal personhood and citizenship, EXCEPT the implications to accept the logical conclusion is that more Hispanic undocumented aliens will be able claim birth right citizenship meaning the racists will not accept the logic and well let's say I don't trust this SC to not be racist.

#98 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 12:58 PM | Reply

$3000 tax benefit just for having a weak heart beat in the womb? Sounds like a good recipe for a lot of women to get pregnant and then have yearly abortions after the heart beat is medically confirmed. Basically, women in Georgia will be getting paid to get pregnant, have an abortion and then do it again.

#99 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-08-04 12:59 PM | Reply

#93

Nothing that I said directed to or about Sentinel had anything to do with what Truth said. I can't make this any more clear. I do not deny that they were talking about US citizenship, but the independant point Sentinel repeatedly made about a born person never being the same as an unborn person is not true under Georgia law. My response and ire regarding this single aspect is CORRECT no matter how ignorantly you want to keep arguing the opposite. READ THE WORDS, I only addressed the new meaning of PERSON as it relates to Georgia's law.

If I'd mentioned anything to do with citizenship in my answer I'd apologize for doing so. I didn't, something you are unable to wrap your mind around. I'm never going to apologize for something I didn't do.

#100 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 01:04 PM | Reply

"$3000 tax benefit"

No, a $3,000 tax exemption, i.e., a reduction in taxable income. In a state with a 5.75% tax rate, that would be about $175.

#101 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-08-04 01:04 PM | Reply

So your answer is gestation ends with the heartbeat? And you infer I'm dim for something I never stated.Grow up loser.
In close to 20 years at this site since teaching Boaz a lot is 2 words not 1 he still hasn't caught on.Maybe you should realize your not changing any ones point of view and your grandiose opinion of yourself is shared by few if any.

#92 | POSTED BY SCOTTY

Ok, let me pause a second. First I was not directing the intelligence question at you per se. I was speaking in general terms of the magnitude of impact on society by accepting fetal personhood.

WRT your gestation question, I understood your question to mean the time when the entity (zygote) obtains full rights. The GA law claims that to be when a zygote has a measurable heartbeat generally speaking, so around 6 weeks.

OF COURSE a zygote/embryo/fetus has to continue gestation, the issue is that GA now claims personhood around 34 weeks earlier than before with all the attendant rights

#102 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 01:06 PM | Reply

Basically, women in Georgia will be getting paid to get pregnant, have an abortion and then do it again.

#99 | POSTED BY MODER8

Keep in mind that the woman can be arrested for murder if she travels to another state for an abortion and returns to GA or so the logic seems to me. I THINK that would get around the interstate issue protecting travel.

#103 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 01:08 PM | Reply

Just ot be clear, what's detected and called a "fetal heartbeat" at 6 weeks - there is no heart. There's just an electrical signal in a mass of tissue that may differentiate into a heart later.

#104 | Posted by YAV at 2022-08-04 01:11 PM | Reply

The GA law addresses that YAV

#105 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 01:12 PM | Reply

The GA law is insane - and if people haven't read the article, they need to. As far as GA law addressing "fetal heartbeat" my point is declaring it a "fetal heartbeat" is --------. I don't care what the law states.

#106 | Posted by YAV at 2022-08-04 01:16 PM | Reply

"Sounds like a good recipe for a lot of women to get pregnant and then have yearly abortions after the heart beat is medically confirmed. Basically, women in Georgia will be getting paid to get pregnant, have an abortion and then do it again."

So, you trust women or not?

Nevermind the fact there is zero incentive for a woman to do what you suggested.

#107 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-04 01:16 PM | Reply

In the founding of the United States of America, the State of Georgia and the several
states affirmed that: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - that to secure these Rights,
Governments are instituted among men;"

(2) To protect the fundamental rights of all persons, and specifically to protect the
fundamental rights of particular classes of persons who had not previously been
recognized under law, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified,
providing that, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws";

(3) Modern medical science, not available decades ago, demonstrates that unborn
children are a class of living, distinct persons and more expansive state recognition of
unborn children as persons did not exist when Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and
Roe v. Wade (1973) established abortion related precedents;

(4) The State of Georgia, applying reasoned judgment to the full body of modern medical
science, recognizes the benefits of providing full legal recognition to an unborn child
above the minimum requirements of federal law;

(5) Article I, Section I, Paragraphs I and II of the Constitution of the State of Georgia
affirm that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due
process of law"; and that "[p]rotection to person and property is the paramount duty of
government and shall be impartial and complete. No person shall be denied the equal
protection of the laws"; and

(6) It shall be the policy of the State of Georgia to recognize unborn children as natural
persons.

www.legis.ga.gov

As the law above states, what practical difference is there between the legal protections afforded a zygote with a heartbeat that are different than those afforded any other US citizen?

I'm still waiting for anyone to answer this question. My answer is "none" and if that indeed is the answer then the distinction between citizen or not is irrelevant in regards to Georgia's expressed purpose in extending personhood status to zygotes within its jurisdiction.

#108 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 01:22 PM | Reply

WaPo article:

"Under Georgia law, fetuses now have "full legal recognition" as living people. That means their parents can claim them as dependents on their tax returns " even before delivery.
The state's department of revenue said Monday that it would begin recognizing "any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat ... as eligible for the Georgia individual income tax dependent exemption" " amounting to $3,000. Taxpayers must be prepared to provide relevant medical records and documents if requested by the department."

Georgia's code/tax and laws (cited):

"...the Department will recognize any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat, as defined inO.C.G.A. 1-2-1, as eligible for the Georgia individual income tax dependent exemption."
dor.georgia.gov

Here's the complete text for O.C.G.A. 1-2-1 for the current year :

O.C.G.A. 1-2-1
"Current through 2021-2022 Regular Session Chapters 1-872 and 874-884
Section 1-2-1 - [See note] Classes of persons generally; "natural person" defined; corporations deemed artificial persons; nature of corporations generally
(a) There are two classes of persons: natural and artificial.
(b) "Natural person" means any human being including an unborn child.
(c) Corporations are artificial persons. They are creatures of the law and, except insofar as the law forbids it, they are subject to be changed, modified, or destroyed at the will of their creator.
(d) Unless otherwise provided by law, any natural person, including an unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat, shall be included in population based determinations.
(e) As used in this Code section, the term:
(1) "Detectable human heartbeat" means embryonic or fetal cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the heart within the gestational sac.
(2) "Unborn child" means a member of the species ---- sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb."

casetext.com

#109 | Posted by YAV at 2022-08-04 01:32 PM | Reply

And Miranda,

...and specifically to protect the fundamental rights of particular classes of persons who had not previously been recognized under law ...

The State of Georgia, applying reasoned judgment to the full body of modern medical science, recognizes the benefits of providing full legal recognition to an unborn child...

It shall be the policy of the State of Georgia to recognize unborn children as natural persons.

if an ex vitro, "born" child is recognized as a "person," and an in-vitro, "unborn" child is recognized equally as a "person," than was Sentinel correct when he said these?
...you go right and keep on believing that people who empirically haven't been born or naturalized yet have already been born or naturalized, and that your warped conclusion "follows" ...

Georgia recognizes unborn children as persons. You really have to be special to think unborn means "born".

In Georgia that's exactly what "born" now means, unless one thinks the term wasn't previously synonymous with defining a "person".

#110 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 01:39 PM | Reply

Based on #109, the term "born" is no longer a legal descriptor in Georgia. Now the terminology is simply "natural person" whether born or unborn.

#111 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 01:43 PM | Reply

I can imagine several paths - criminal, civil, or administrative - for the GA definition to get to the supreme court.

And then, taking the definitions in from O.C.G.A. 1-2-1 as posted by YAV, and plugging into the 14th as posted by Sentinel: "All human beings including an unborn child 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."

All it would take is one case from one GA resident appealing an IRS criminal or administrative sanction for claiming their fetus on a federal tax return. Or a child support case involving a fetus impregnated in GA and the mother moving to another state.

The SC can't change the wording of the 14th, but the court could certainly affix additional definitions or interpretations to specific words in the 14th.

#112 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-08-04 01:53 PM | Reply

You left out the salient part, that the 14th amendment draws a distinction between citizens and persons, so there's that. If you believe a zygot person has all the same legal protections of a citizen, then it follows that visitors from other countries, who are also "persons" in EVERY state (not just Georgia) are citizens as well. Are you claiming that? Georgia now considers an unborn child a person. Personhood does not equal U.S. Citizenship. The United States requires a citizen to have been BORN. By definition, an UNborn child has not yet been born, therefore cannot be recognized as a U.S. Citizen.

Your logic is falling apart. Sentinal was right. You and TH were wrong. Swallow it.

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

#113 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-04 02:02 PM | Reply

#113

Read post 35. Already covered it.

"Persons are can be recognized as citizens."

Those words are not necessarily legally synonymous. Take the Constitution's commands on taking the census. It mentions "persons" and that reference explicitly refers to citizens and non-citizens alike. Also references in the Bill of Rights mention "persons", which includes even non-citizens under certain amendments' protections from the state.

#114 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 02:12 PM | Reply

Miranda with all respect the term born would have to be adjudicated
I known that sounds absurd but the equivalence of the rights of born vs unborn brings that absurdity into the realm of possibility
That is the point I am making
And others agree as outlined in the Bloomberg article I posted
It is a current debate among legal scholars ie the ones who will be writing the laws and arguing them in court

#115 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 02:21 PM | Reply

The SCOTUS has already ruled that persons doesn't necessarily mean citizens by making specific protections only available to citizens by note.

Actually, if you read Georgia's take on the 14th, it's perfectly clear that they indeed are claiming citizenship for this "new class" they extended 14th Amendment protections to. Here's a list of the limited constitutional rights non citizens have:

Right to jury trial;
Right to Miranda warning;
Right to defend against charges and deportation;
Right to counsel in criminal proceedings;
Right to protection from unlawful search and seizure;
Right to protection against self-incrimination;
Right to file civil lawsuits;
Right to payment for work performed;
Right to a healthy and safe work environment; and
Right to k-12 education.

ualr.edu

#116 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 02:25 PM | Reply

The question that will probably end up before the SC will be "Is there a practical difference between unborn and born that justifies retaining the historical definition of "born".

For those arguing "Yes" I'd be curious as to your logic, but keep in mind that logic has to account for the rights that are now imbued in the unborn-iow just stating born is different from unborn is not sufficient.

#117 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 02:26 PM | Reply

#117 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

If that definition were to change, it would open a Pandora's box. Citizenship, population, tax implications, representation, expanded criminal acts, discrimination, labor laws. Any criminal, civil, or administrative function requiring a definition of person. On and on.

#118 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-08-04 02:38 PM | Reply

Its a shame the Church hasn't evolved its thoughts with the advancements in science.Before we discovered the microscopic world the prevalent thought was whole Mini Me's are ---------- by male into the female host and he/she grows up in there till they are ready to leave.Sperm and eggs were not around till the 1660's but we are bound to the old school of thought thanks to to religion.

#119 | Posted by Scotty at 2022-08-04 02:49 PM | Reply

...you go right and keep on believing that people who empirically haven't been born or naturalized yet have already been born or naturalized...

"That quote is what I took issue with because Georgia indeed passed a law where those who haven't been born yet are treated as equal to those who have been born - something you ignorantly mocked in the quote above."

Nope. In context, I was clearly mocking Hurt's U.S. Citizens claim. But you go ahead and keep on digging yourself deeper and deeper into this deeper than deep hole.

#120 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 03:50 PM | Reply

But you go ahead and keep on digging yourself deeper and deeper into this deeper than deep hole.

Only you and Miranda have a problem understanding exactly what I've repeatedly expressed in crystal clear unambiguous language. As far as I'm concerned, both of you were buried yesterday and I've been whizzing on the graves ever since.

But hey, that's just me. You do you. Keep ranting about citizenship when it's not even a salient or relevant issue to this Georgia law and Truth admits was just an aside to the actual importance and impact of the law on real people living real lives. If the child comes out of its mother it's a citizen, end of story. Citizenship means bupkis when a zygote already retains the full protections of the law and Constitution granted under the 14th Amendment.

The only place I've dug deeper and deeper in has been your obviously tender psyche. Sorry for the ouchee.

#121 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 04:00 PM | Reply

"Actually, if you read Georgia's take on the 14th, it's perfectly clear that they indeed are claiming citizenship for this "new class" they extended 14th Amendment protections to."

You're just making stuff up (i.e. lying) again. The bill only even mentions the 14th Amendment once and doesn't allude citizenship at all:


37 (2) To protect the fundamental rights of all persons, and specifically to protect the
38 fundamental rights of particular classes of persons who had not previously been
39 recognized under law, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified,
40 providing that, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
41 without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal
42 protection of the laws";
www.legis.ga.gov

#122 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 04:09 PM | Reply

First we have disputes over what a woman is and now we're having a dispute of what born is.

The Chinese takeover can't come soon enough.

#123 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2022-08-04 04:16 PM | Reply

Talk to the hand... or go back and read the complete sequence in post 108, not your cherry-picked version.

The operative phrase being

To protect the fundamental rights of all PERSONS, and specifically to protect the
fundamental rights of particular classes of PERSONS who had not previously been recognized under law, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, providing that, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws";

Attached to Section 1-2-1

(a) There are two classes of persons: natural and artificial.
(b) "Natural person" means any human being including an unborn child.

Now do natural persons have full constitutional rights under Georgia's law? Would seem so, wouldn't it?

#124 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 04:16 PM | Reply

If the child comes out of its mother it's a citizen, end of story. Citizenship means bupkis when a zygote already retains the full protections of the law and Constitution granted under the 14th Amendment.
The only place I've dug deeper and deeper in has been your obviously tender psyche. Sorry for the ouchee.

#121 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Tony, I take issue with one statement you make, that citizenship means bupkis relating to zygotes retaining full rights.

Citizenship is its own question.

Citizenship is commuted through birthright, so we have situations where undocumented aliens give birth on American soil creating anchor babies. The child can (i think at 21) can petition to allow their parents to become citizens.

The 14th CLEARLY states born on American soil commutes the birthright. BUT, by commuting all those rights on an unborn, essentially making the unborn a PERSON, it opens the question of the definition of BORN=from a legalistic standpoint. The intent is to provide citizenship to a person who starts life on American soil so that birth right has a clear demarcation. An unborn entity was NOT a person when the 14th Amendment was written. So, from a legalistic standpoint birth is no longer the demarcation if the unborn entity is now considered a PERSON. So, one has to answer the question I pose in #117.

Is there a practical difference between unborn and born that justifies retaining the historical definition of "born"?

Iow if a person has full rights, what justification is there for a point where the person is not entitled to citizenship?

#125 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 04:17 PM | Reply

Excuse me, full constitutional protections as codified to "persons" under the 14th Amendment with "persons" being expressly defined in the law's text to include "unborn child(ren)."

#126 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 04:19 PM | Reply

"Keep ranting about citizenship when it's not even a salient or relevant issue to this Georgia law"

You're clearly trolling now, since you just brought up citizenship again in #116. Or do you actually have MPD, since you're contradicting yourself in many places?

#127 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 04:19 PM | Reply

(2) To protect the fundamental rights of all persons, and specifically to protect the
38 fundamental rights of particular classes of persons who had not previously been
39 recognized under law, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified,
40 providing that, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
41 without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal
42 protection of the laws";
www.legis.ga.gov
#122 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Sentinel, if both born and unborn entities are PERSONS and the state cannot deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, please justify denying the rights of the unborn of citizenship? If you can.

#128 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 04:20 PM | Reply

Truth, I don't disagree, but understand my point.

As it regards any aspect of actual law or protections an in-vitro zygote would use, the term "citizen" is meaningless because the actual benefits of citizenship are almost exclusively only realized by actual birthed people. Ie. a zygote isn't going to independently travel, it won't be subject to interactions with LEO, it doesn't pay taxes, it doesn't vote, it has no earthly personal political/legal concerns while in vitro. However, under this law, it can be represented by outsiders protecting its right to healthy development within its mother/host.

That is all I meant. I hope you understand what I mean by that.

#129 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 04:26 PM | Reply

You're clearly trolling now, since you just brought up citizenship again in #116.

As an answer to Miranda's question regarding it.

Just like I did to Truth above.

#130 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 04:27 PM | Reply

"Sentinel, if both born and unborn entities are PERSONS and the state cannot deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, please justify denying the rights of the unborn of citizenship? If you can."

As far as U.S. Citizenship is concerned, it's the exact same reasoning as visitors (documented or otherwise) or permanent residents having equal protection of laws as PERSONS but not being recognized as "Citizens" because they have not yet met the qualifications for that, according to how it's defined in the Constitution.

#131 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 04:29 PM | Reply

But Tony, the fetus/embryo/zygote will have profound impact on the mother in deportation hearings.

#132 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 04:31 PM | Reply

they have not yet met the qualifications for that, according to how it's defined in the Constitution.

We get that. But Georgia's law makes the literal case that the word "born" has been replaced by their definition of "natural person" moving the point of that natural person retaining constitutional rights to the moment it has a discernable heartbeat within its mother.

So now, the issue of actual citizenship needs to be adjudicated in courts since Georgia changed their definition of the former standard.

But again, I fail to see where citizenship status in vitro is of any real importance. There are no rights of citizenship the in-vitro person will actively use that I can think of, and at the moment it takes its first breath inside the state of Georgia, it unquestionably becomes a US citizen.

Citizenship - for the in-vitro child - is irrelevant when it already retains and is protected by every constitutional right which would actually affect its life before actual birth.

Can you name one single thing the in-vitro child in Georgia does not have because the federal government doesn't recognize it as a US citizen?

#133 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 04:38 PM | Reply

Sentinel, you have not provided a JUSTIFICATION for the demarcation which is done by defining "born" as "birthed". Again, at the time of the 14th Amendment, Born was equated with Person. No Birth, No Person

That has changed. Now a Person need not be born to be a Person.

Consider this:

Definition of born
1a: brought forth by or as if by birth

Definition of birth
1a: the emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent
b: the act or process of bringing forth young from the womb

One could argue the process of BIRTH starts at conception because that is when the process of bringing forth from the womb commences.

So, one could argue that the PROCESS of being BORN commences at conception. Again, on the face of it is absurd... BUT

Since it has been adjudicated, the question is open

#134 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 04:41 PM | Reply

But Tony, the fetus/embryo/zygote will have profound impact on the mother in deportation hearings.

The mother can't be deported if she hires an attorney to protect the zygote's rights. Are you not reading the law in this way?

As I've read so far, Georgia hasn't made a distinction excepting the zygotes of undocumenteds living within its boundaries. They'd have to include such language, or the zygote has the expressed right to 14th Amendment protections within the state of Georgia.

#135 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 04:41 PM | Reply

Can you name one single thing the in-vitro child in Georgia does not have because the federal government doesn't recognize it as a US citizen?

#133 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

The right for its mother to not be deported.

#136 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 04:42 PM | Reply

The mother can't be deported if she hires an attorney to protect the zygote's rights.

If the zygote is not a citizen, how would this help her?

#137 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 04:43 PM | Reply

One could argue the process of BIRTH starts at conception because that is when the process of bringing forth from the womb commences.

That is exactly the evangelical Christian definition of life. And that is what the language of this Georgia law makes clear it is based on.

#138 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 04:43 PM | Reply

#136

What if the mother states that she will abort the child if she's forced to leave the state?

Won't the state be compelled to protect the in-vitro life under its own laws?

I think the reality is that all of this is unknown and will keep lawyers busy for years. It only takes months for a baby to be born, which moots the entire case. I don't think that deportation orders normally work that quickly.

And even more importantly, if the mother can prove the child was conceived in Georgia, the child has the right to be born there, doesn't it?

#139 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 04:48 PM | Reply

And even more importantly, if the mother can prove the child was conceived in Georgia, the child has the right to be born there, doesn't it?

#139 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Now you're thinking like a lawyer! :O)

#140 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 04:49 PM | Reply

Consider an abortion provider in another state. If they provide abortions to GA residents and travel to GA can they be arrested?

#141 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 04:50 PM | Reply

what if someone has a car accident with a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage, is that a crime?

#142 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 04:51 PM | Reply

The right for its mother to not be deported.

Good answer, but my question wasn't considering the mother/host getting into legal trouble, I was focused on the child itself.

But again, all your questions don't yet have answers and won't have them until they do. Miscarriages are going to a huge problem.

A recent re-analysis of hCG study data concluded that approximately 40-60% of embryos may be lost between fertilisation and birth, although this will vary substantially between individual women. In conclusion, natural human embryo mortality is lower than often claimed and widely accepted. Estimates for total prenatal mortality of 70% or higher are exaggerated and not supported by the available data.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Imagine a woman has expressed concerns or misgivings about her pregnancy and then has a spontaneous abortion. Pregnancy is a healthcare/medical condition and it should be left between the woman and her provider to figure out what's best for her, period. It should be no one else's business whatsoever.

#143 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 05:05 PM | Reply

agreed 100%

#144 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 05:09 PM | Reply

Does this mean a pregnant woman can't be arrested as it will infringe on the rights of the unborn person for being held without being suspected of a crime?

Can the unborn person then, once born, sue the state for false imprisonment?

#145 | Posted by Itchy at 2022-08-04 05:41 PM | Reply

#145

No and no. The emergent baby will not be confined in any sense of the word once born, and its natural residence is inside its mother until it emerges. So the mother's physical location does not affect the baby unless the mother is intentionally subjected to undue and intentional physical or emotional strain that could negatively impact the child inside her.

#146 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 05:45 PM | Reply

" Can the unborn person then, once born, sue the state for false imprisonment?"

Why wait until it's born?

#147 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-08-04 06:29 PM | Reply

"Why wait until it's born?"

I can see it now: FETUS SUES CLETUS.

#148 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-08-04 06:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

In response to #136,137... Two salient points here:

The federal government does not take state laws into consideration when enforcing immigration and deportation laws. Georgia's laws cannot supersede federal ones nor the text of the US Constitution.

Even if it did, recognizing the unborn as a person would put in the same categories as permanent residents, visitors and aliens. If the mother is an "undocumented" person, then so is the unborn child (prior to being born). A soon-to-be deported mother carrying a non-citizen child would likely be deported together with it.

#149 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 08:24 PM | Reply

#149

I don't think you understand that I've never disagreed with your interpretations of current law. The point has always been that Georgia has reshuffled the deck as it regards how THEY view personhood and possibly citizenship. You are correct based on the Supremacy Clause, but I posit that if Georgia wanted to, they could tie up in court any attempt to usurp their interpretations at minimum through an extended lawsuit and appeal process long enough for the baby to be born, changing the dynamics of any deportation case.

However, it's Georgia, and I can't see them doing that for an undocumented mother with child. But I could certainly see such a case being forwarded on the in-vitro baby's account based on the rights the state has apparently granted it to personhood when their laws expressly states their rights are beyond those of the federal government.

Reiterating, such a case doesn't have to be adjudicated in the baby's favor, it just has to keep its mother in country long enough to give birth.

#150 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 08:38 PM | Reply

And to be more precise, at least a first case or class action would likely keep the mother(s) in country until after they gave birth.

Once precedence is set, then it's another story obviously if the federal government prevails. However, I don't think I'm the only one who believes this current SCOTUS majority would absolutely embrace the notion of life beginning at fertilization if given a vehicle to do so. ACB actually publicly signed-on to a posted document (non legal) expressing this interpretation this back in 2006. It's not that much of a stretch if the state wanted to make the case that indeed "born" should be reinterpreted as "natural personhood" instead.

#151 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 08:45 PM | Reply

"I don't think you understand that I've never disagreed with your interpretations of current law."

You clearly don't understand I wasn't responding to you. TH is still standing by and doubling down on the statement she made in #10, as far as I can tell.

#152 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 08:46 PM | Reply

You clearly don't understand I wasn't responding to you. TH is still standing by and doubling down on the statement she made in #10, as far as I can tell.

#152 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Well, you are misinterpreting my statements. I will admit that you are correct regarding the current state of the law. My initial comment was facetious. BUT, we are in a new paradigm. Fetal personhood is now a state law. That will have profound impacts. And I stand by the point that the impact of that concept on the 14th Amendment and citizenship is being debated by legal minds. Tony makes an excellent point that the timing of the pregnancy may make the point moot vis a vis deportation, but I can certainly see conservatives pushing that notion to get the concept before the SC-to backdoor fetal personhood into national law.

And, again, the concept of fetal personhood is a profound change to law in this country and the effects will be enormous and citizenship is a very small aspect of that.

#153 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 08:53 PM | Reply

TH is still standing by and doubling down on the statement she made in #10, as far as I can tell.

Not at all.

First, 136 and 137 were direct questions to me. I'm just speaking to you about our entire diatribe on this thread while also touching on the substance of the questions of the posts.

TH addressed post 10 in post 43, yesterday.

I will admit I was being a little facetious in my initial comment about anchor zygotes, but given the GA law argues that the 14th Amendment applies to zygotes, it isn't that much of a stretch to see that someone will make the argument that the fetus of an undocumented immigrant is an anchor fetus. GA is providing all sorts of rights to the zygote, why not citizenship.
I thought we'd past that a long time ago.

And I understand it's hard to read every post in a long thread, but the citizenship quandary only exists because Georgia changed the definitions and as yet no court has ruled on them. And with so many jurists bent on illegalizing abortion, there is no telling how they'll respond to Georgia's new establishment of zygote personhood and what it eventually means towards US citizenship.

#154 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 08:58 PM | Reply

...passed...

#155 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 09:00 PM | Reply

"I honestly don't know how you can logically differentiate fetal personhood and citizenship, EXCEPT the implications to accept the logical conclusion is that more Hispanic undocumented aliens will be able claim birth right citizenship meaning the racists will not accept the logic and well let's say I don't trust this SC to not be racist."
#98 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2022-08-04 12:58 PM

So, was TH still being facetious, 88 posts later?

#156 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 09:23 PM | Reply

So, was TH still being facetious, 88 posts later?

#156 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

If and when this Georgia definition becomes a case which gets to the Supreme Court, will the SC redefine the meaning of person in the 14th amendment?
#94 | POSTED BY EL_BUSCADOR
I honestly don't know how you can logically differentiate fetal personhood and citizenship, EXCEPT the implications to accept the logical conclusion is that more Hispanic undocumented aliens will be able claim birth right citizenship meaning the racists will not accept the logic and well let's say I don't trust this SC to not be racist.

#98 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Why did you delete the context?

Context matters.

jeez stop beating the dead horse

#157 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 09:31 PM | Reply

#156

It's called speculative debate at that point Sentinel, it isn't a declaration of certainty. What part of this did you not understand?

My initial comment was facetious. BUT, we are in a new paradigm. Fetal personhood is now a state law. That will have profound impacts. And I stand by the point that the impact of that concept on the 14th Amendment and citizenship is being debated by legal minds.
And I said mostly the same thing in my response.
And with so many jurists bent on illegalizing abortion, there is no telling how they'll respond to Georgia's new establishment of zygote personhood and what it eventually means towards US citizenship.

#158 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 09:32 PM | Reply

Neither of you are arguing in good faith.

#159 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 09:50 PM | Reply

Neither of you are arguing in good faith.

#159 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

As opposed to you who focuses on one specific comment and ignore the well over 100 posts discussing, explaining, expanding on the point?

I am not sure what you are looking for. Are you looking for me to admit that born does not mean unborn? Congrats. You are correct.

Now let the adults discuss the actual issues.

#160 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 09:57 PM | Reply

i will say in this whole thread you did make 1 salient point about the supremacy clause. Other than that your contribution has been negligible.

#161 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 09:59 PM | Reply

"Why did you delete the context?
Context matters."

The context doesn't change the imperative statements you made which I highlighted. You chose to bring up citizenship again, claiming a "logical" conclusion that wasn't logical at all, even though what you were responding to said nothing about citizenship. You doubled down on your previous statement that you kinda sorta claimed part of was facetious.

#162 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 10:07 PM | Reply

I can reach no other conclusion but you are a ------- idiot.

#163 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 10:15 PM | Reply

*declarative not imperative

#164 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 10:15 PM | Reply

again, ------- idiot

#165 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 10:16 PM | Reply

Usually people have a point.

Can you state yours?

#166 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 10:17 PM | Reply

"I can reach no other conclusion but you are a ------- idiot.

Not the first the time in this thread you've made an erroneous conclusion or projected your own alias's traits onto me.

At least your consistent on that.

#167 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 10:17 PM | Reply

still waiting for you to make a point dumbass

#168 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 10:19 PM | Reply

Let's revisit:

TR: Will a heartbeating zygote in Georgia be given the very same rights and protections afforded all Georgia citizens under both the state and federal constitutions?

Sent: The answer to that question is clearly no, under the federal constitution. I'm not familiar with Georgia's state constitution...

It is not bad faith to recognize a couple truths about the Georgia law.

1. It defines "natural person(hood)" to begin with a fetal heartbeat.
2. It affords all "natural persons" the equal protections guaranteed in the 14th Amendment. That amendment's protections are normally reserved to citizens, not simply persons merely present in the US.
3. As it regards an in-vitro zygote, the protections extended by Georgia EXCEED "the minimum" of those given to US citizens within the Constitution, as the Georgia law clearly states.

It is simply not a stretch to posit that an in-vitro zygote in Georgia has equal - if not superior - protections to US citizen zygotes residing outside of Georgia, and equal protections to all citizens within Georgia as dictated by Georgia law.

So the answer to my question is clearly yes, with the one exception that you mentioned - currently there is no history of the federal government finding that the rights of citizenship begin at the moment of fetal heartbeat. But given all the above, my contention is that given time and the requisite court cases, the SCOTUS might very well agree to codify Georgia's standard across the rest of the nation. (Which is the logical progression of where the issue is already moving towards compared to where it's been)

#169 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 10:20 PM | Reply

.

#170 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 10:20 PM | Reply

That's what I thought, nothing.

You are about as useful as a priest at an ----

#171 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-04 10:21 PM | Reply

You missed the point, again. Not surprising.

#172 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-04 10:29 PM | Reply

Isn't developing cardiovascular tissue different from a functioning heart? I'm uncertain how the tissue that is pulsing - doesn't it do that independently - without even one proper valve yet constructed constitutes a heart. What kind of medical procedures are practiced on that? It's not a viable organ just yet, but at what point is it?

In any case, this is now become a much larger issue than the morons who conceived of it understood. I hope it burns every church out from office. So to speak.

#173 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2022-08-04 11:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"IVF will likely become illegal"

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

#174 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-08-05 08:08 AM | Reply

#174 - wow.

Are you able to feel anything for others?

#175 | Posted by YAV at 2022-08-05 08:22 AM | Reply

"Are you able to feel anything for others?"

The cruelty is the point. It's mother's milk to some people.

#176 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2022-08-05 08:25 AM | Reply

(2) 'Unborn child' means a member of the species ---- sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb."

So not applicable to IVF

#177 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-05 09:36 AM | Reply

What I haven't heard any of you "slippery slopers" mention is murder. The statute establishes personhood at birth, but allows abortion until heartbeat. But if it is a person at conception, that would be murder.

#178 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-05 09:43 AM | Reply

Correction, I meant to type this:
What I haven't heard any of you "slippery slopers" mention is murder. The statute establishes personhood at conception, but allows abortion until heartbeat. But if it is a person at conception, that would be murder, regardless of heartbeat.

#179 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-05 09:44 AM | Reply

"The statute establishes personhood at conception, but allows abortion until heartbeat."

Then there's no Right To Life.

#180 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-05 09:47 AM | Reply

Well Miranda it does beg the question
If the zygote is a person then why is aborting it not murder?

#181 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-08-05 10:11 AM | Reply

This is what happens when idiots make decisions based on their fee-fees and not facts. I'm looking at you, Sharia Supremes, and every one of you Vanillia ISIS Republican morons.

We need to save ourselves from these idiots.

#182 | Posted by YAV at 2022-08-05 11:10 AM | Reply

THANKS AGAIN, SCOTUS.
This is just the beginning of many ridiculous laws and statutes to come.

#183 | Posted by e1g1 at 2022-08-05 11:49 AM | Reply

Well Miranda it does beg the question
If the zygote is a person then why is aborting it not murder?

Because all but the most fervent religious fanatics know that a fertilized ovum is not the same as a viable fetus regardless of how they parse the distinctions.

And nature already aborts at minimum 40%-60% of fertilized ovums prior to delivery as it is. To most rational minds, that fact should lead to an understanding that even nature doesn't want every single fertilized ovum to gestate until delivery, so there must be a natural reason why that we humans do not yet understand.

#184 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-05 03:12 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort