One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The Shocking Bloody History of 'Legal Personhood'
Feb 21, 2015 00:53:54   #
Ricktloml
 
By Johnathon Van Maren

I've been on campus at the University of Central Florida this week with a team of volunteers, debating university students on the issue of a******n. One mark of our generation seems to come up in many of our conversations: An ignorance of history. He who does not know the past," John G. Diefenbaker once noted, "can never understand the present, and he certainly can do nothing for the future."A prescient statement-in regards to a******n, we are destroying the future, child by butchered child.

Time and time again, students bring up the same tired argument to support a******n. Once you've established the scientific basis for the pro-life position, they respond blithely, "Perhaps the child in the womb is a human being, but it's not a PERSON."

They're often stunned when I respond by telling them that they're using discriminatory and exclusionary language: "What? Why?" I ask them to respond to one simple question: Name one time in human history when the phrase "legal personhood" was used to include or protect human beings and ensure their right to life is respected if that's the case," I respond, "let's take a look at when the concept of "legal personhood" has been used as a device to deprive human beings of their rights based on arbitrarily selected criteria."

The list is devastating. African-Americans were denied "legal personhood", and were ens***ed, murdered, raped and abused as the result. Native Americans were denied "legal personhood" and were systematically robbed, forced onto reserves, and in many cases k**led. Jewish people in Germany were excluded from "legal personhood" status, and six million of them were slaughtered. Women were not considered to be "legal persons" and thus could not v**e, get an education, or on some cases even custody of their own children.

And today, in 2015, millions of developing human beings in the womb are poisoned, shredded, dismembered, and discarded by nations that often begrudgingly recognize their humanity, but deny their "legal personhood."

Every single one of these examples differs drastically, but there is one common denominator. In each case, dehumanization led to victimization. In each case, "human rights" became a meaningless term, as the right to life inherent to our humanity was instead deemed a privilege to be given by the strong to the weak, with the h**ed or inconvenient often excluded.
Those who commit a******ns may not be dehumanizing pre-born children in the womb with malice, but the end result-victimization is the same nonetheless.

"Your ideas concerning "legal personhood" have a long history," I tell the students. "Do you think that history might reflect badly on your position? Do you see the parallels?"

In most cases they do. "So what on your view, should we do about this difficult a******n situation?" one young man asked me yesterday.
"It's simple," I responded "Human beings have human rights. Human rights must begin when human beings begin, or we are only granting rights on arbitrary criteria that will lead to the victimization of some. In a society where different religious groups and different cultures believe different things about the pre-born child in the womb, we must ensure that the rights of the youngest human beings are protected based on who they are, not how certain groups of people might feel about them. Perhaps different groups disagree about "legal personhood", or when the pre-born human gets a soul, or whether consciousness t***slates into value. But in order to protect all human beings in a multicultural society, we have to fall back on a scientific fact we are all forced to recognize: The human being begins his or her life at fertilization. That is the only rational point at which we must recognize their human rights."

"And what about personhood" the young man asked, nodding slowly

"Let me ask you this," I said "Every pro-choice person I've talked to today has had a different opinion about when the pre-born child becomes valuable. Some say 12 weeks, some say 18 weeks, some say 24. They all have different reasons for their opinion, and different reasons for feeling about pre-born humans the way they do. But should pre-born humans be protected based on a scientifically knowable fact-that they are unique, unrepeatable human beings-or based on how different groups of people in our society feel about them? Which is the more rational, humane and moral way of dealing with this question? In which human rights doctrine- our consistent one, or their arbitrary one-is every human being, regardless of age vulnerability, race or creed-kept safe?"

"Only in yours," he admitted. He stood up nodding. "Your view is the only one that is consistent and makes sense."

Our culture may not know history well. And that's why it's the responsibility of those who fight for the human rights of pre-born children to point out that the intellectual history of "legal personhood" is a laundry list of discrimination, exclusion, and bloodshed. The opinions of pro-"choice" people should not be permitted to infringe on the fundamental right to life of other human beings. Their feelings regarding the value of the youngest members of the human family should not provide justification for the barbarism of a******n. Their trash philosophy should not be legislated. Rather, when we are asking ourselves who is owed human rights, we can only have one moral answer: Human beings.

Pro-choice people have the right to their opinions and their semantics. They do not have the right to use those and semantics to justify the destruction of other human beings.

Reply
Feb 21, 2015 01:58:57   #
rumitoid
 
Ricktloml wrote:
By Johnathon Van Maren

I've been on campus at the University of Central Florida this week with a team of volunteers, debating university students on the issue of a******n. One mark of our generation seems to come up in many of our conversations: An ignorance of history. He who does not know the past," John G. Diefenbaker once noted, "can never understand the present, and he certainly can do nothing for the future."A prescient statement-in regards to a******n, we are destroying the future, child by butchered child.

Time and time again, students bring up the same tired argument to support a******n. Once you've established the scientific basis for the pro-life position, they respond blithely, "Perhaps the child in the womb is a human being, but it's not a PERSON."

They're often stunned when I respond by telling them that they're using discriminatory and exclusionary language: "What? Why?" I ask them to respond to one simple question: Name one time in human history when the phrase "legal personhood" was used to include or protect human beings and ensure their right to life is respected if that's the case," I respond, "let's take a look at when the concept of "legal personhood" has been used as a device to deprive human beings of their rights based on arbitrarily selected criteria."

The list is devastating. African-Americans were denied "legal personhood", and were ens***ed, murdered, raped and abused as the result. Native Americans were denied "legal personhood" and were systematically robbed, forced onto reserves, and in many cases k**led. Jewish people in Germany were excluded from "legal personhood" status, and six million of them were slaughtered. Women were not considered to be "legal persons" and thus could not v**e, get an education, or on some cases even custody of their own children.

And today, in 2015, millions of developing human beings in the womb are poisoned, shredded, dismembered, and discarded by nations that often begrudgingly recognize their humanity, but deny their "legal personhood."

Every single one of these examples differs drastically, but there is one common denominator. In each case, dehumanization led to victimization. In each case, "human rights" became a meaningless term, as the right to life inherent to our humanity was instead deemed a privilege to be given by the strong to the weak, with the h**ed or inconvenient often excluded.
Those who commit a******ns may not be dehumanizing pre-born children in the womb with malice, but the end result-victimization is the same nonetheless.

"Your ideas concerning "legal personhood" have a long history," I tell the students. "Do you think that history might reflect badly on your position? Do you see the parallels?"

In most cases they do. "So what on your view, should we do about this difficult a******n situation?" one young man asked me yesterday.
"It's simple," I responded "Human beings have human rights. Human rights must begin when human beings begin, or we are only granting rights on arbitrary criteria that will lead to the victimization of some. In a society where different religious groups and different cultures believe different things about the pre-born child in the womb, we must ensure that the rights of the youngest human beings are protected based on who they are, not how certain groups of people might feel about them. Perhaps different groups disagree about "legal personhood", or when the pre-born human gets a soul, or whether consciousness t***slates into value. But in order to protect all human beings in a multicultural society, we have to fall back on a scientific fact we are all forced to recognize: The human being begins his or her life at fertilization. That is the only rational point at which we must recognize their human rights."

"And what about personhood" the young man asked, nodding slowly

"Let me ask you this," I said "Every pro-choice person I've talked to today has had a different opinion about when the pre-born child becomes valuable. Some say 12 weeks, some say 18 weeks, some say 24. They all have different reasons for their opinion, and different reasons for feeling about pre-born humans the way they do. But should pre-born humans be protected based on a scientifically knowable fact-that they are unique, unrepeatable human beings-or based on how different groups of people in our society feel about them? Which is the more rational, humane and moral way of dealing with this question? In which human rights doctrine- our consistent one, or their arbitrary one-is every human being, regardless of age vulnerability, race or creed-kept safe?"

"Only in yours," he admitted. He stood up nodding. "Your view is the only one that is consistent and makes sense."

Our culture may not know history well. And that's why it's the responsibility of those who fight for the human rights of pre-born children to point out that the intellectual history of "legal personhood" is a laundry list of discrimination, exclusion, and bloodshed. The opinions of pro-"choice" people should not be permitted to infringe on the fundamental right to life of other human beings. Their feelings regarding the value of the youngest members of the human family should not provide justification for the barbarism of a******n. Their trash philosophy should not be legislated. Rather, when we are asking ourselves who is owed human rights, we can only have one moral answer: Human beings.

Pro-choice people have the right to their opinions and their semantics. They do not have the right to use those and semantics to justify the destruction of other human beings.
By Johnathon Van Maren br br I've been on campu... (show quote)


If personhood for a fetus in the Bible is the question, timing is and is not the answer. "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." Exodus21:22
If that fetus had "personhood," this action would deserve death, not a payment (clearly meaning financial compensation).

An interesting tidbit: "Jewish law at the time of Jesus was quite clear in its statement that an embryo is not reckoned a viable living thing (in Hebrew, bar kayama) until thirty days AFTER ITS BIRTH. One is not allowed to observe the Laws of Mourning for an expelled fetus. As a matter of fact, these Laws are not applicable for a child who does not survive until his thirtieth day." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x1615188

And another: "Hosea 13:16 is"pro-choice". In Hosea 13:16, the Samaritans' punishment for guilt includes having their pregnant women ripped open and their little ones dashed in pieces. (One might understand the need to punish responsible adults, but to k**l the unborn who have done nothing except get conceived by the wrong parents clearly seems to condone, nay mandate, a******n to correct errors of an undesirable conception.)

One last tidbit: "In Numbers 5, where the Lord appears to give a curse that causes a******ns in unfaithful wives, the Lord instructed Moses that a husband who suspected his wife of sleeping with another man could take her to the priest for a test that would either confirm or deny his suspicions. The test involved his wife drinking a cup of "bitter water," which consisted of holy water mixed with the dust of the tabernacle floor. If the woman were innocent, then no harm would come to her by drinking it. But if she were guilty, then she would be cursed with "bitter suffering;" namely, "she will have barrenness and a miscarrying womb."

Reply
Feb 21, 2015 03:51:32   #
Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone
 
Thank you so very much for this post! I normally do not take the time to read very long posts, but this one I read twice. So, thank you for taking the time to post!! So many use a******n as a form of birth control. And some people will argue that the bible says this or that....simple t***h is, in those days the only birth control was abstinence. Today, in these times... birth control can be had with a simple trip to the family doctor, and now with Obamacare....even children are "entitled" to medications and methods of prevention. My thoughts, the time to think about pregnancy is before sex.....not after. And it is the responsibility of parents to teach children about sex.....and not advise them to k**l or abort an unborn child.....and many do give that advice.....

Ricktloml wrote:
By Johnathon Van Maren

I've been on campus at the University of Central Florida this week with a team of volunteers, debating university students on the issue of a******n. One mark of our generation seems to come up in many of our conversations: An ignorance of history. He who does not know the past," John G. Diefenbaker once noted, "can never understand the present, and he certainly can do nothing for the future."A prescient statement-in regards to a******n, we are destroying the future, child by butchered child.

Pro-choice people have the right to their opinions and their semantics. They do not have the right to use those and semantics to justify the destruction of other human beings.
By Johnathon Van Maren br br I've been on campu... (show quote)


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.