How many SCOTUS votes are there for fetal personhood?

[I’m not Stu]

How many votes are there for fetal personhood? There are at least three.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Only three pro-dictatorship judges, ERM?

[libertpaulian]

Alito, Thomas, and possibly Barrett.

[I’m not Stu]

Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. 5-4 with Roberts dissenting.

[The Mikado]

Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. 5-4 with Roberts dissenting.

I strongly doubt Kavanaugh wants fetal personhood. He'd be down with overturning Roe and Casey and sending legal abortion back to the states, but that's not the same thing.

[I’m not Stu]

Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. 5-4 with Roberts dissenting.

I strongly doubt Kavanaugh wants fetal personhood. He'd be down with overturning Roe and Casey and sending legal abortion back to the states, but that's not the same thing.

I seem to think he wants fetal personhood. I think Thomas assigns the majority opinion to himself or Alito.

[Donerail]

Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. 5-4 with Roberts dissenting.

I strongly doubt Kavanaugh wants fetal personhood. He'd be down with overturning Roe and Casey and sending legal abortion back to the states, but that's not the same thing.

I seem to think he wants fetal personhood.

Why do you think this?

[brucejoel99]

Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. 5-4 with Roberts dissenting.

I strongly doubt Kavanaugh wants fetal personhood. He'd be down with overturning Roe and Casey and sending legal abortion back to the states, but that's not the same thing.

I seem to think he wants fetal personhood.

Why do you think this?

Because something something FedSoc-enabled dictatorship, obviously.

[brucejoel99]

In all seriousness, probably 0, & that's even with ACB on the Court. It just can't be understated how much of an extreme minority position the pro-life fetal personhood position is in the legal world, & I just can't see anybody of the Court's academic pedigrees - even somebody of ACB's originalist disposition - choosing to invoke it in an abortion case that manages to come before them.

Seriously, think about the position for more than a sec: say the Court were to hold to a strict originalist interpretation of the inclusion of the word "persons" within the Constitution so that it'd have to apply to unborn fetuses, meaning that they'd be protected by the 14th Amendment. Given that the Citizenship Clause clarifies that citizenship is only granted to people who are born in the United States, such an interpretation would mean that fetuses - although people - would have to be considered stateless persons. It's such legal insanity that I just can't see anybody capable of making it to the Court ever signing onto such a position.

[Donerail]

In all seriousness, probably 0, & that's even with ACB on the Court. It just can't be understated how much of an extreme minority position the pro-life fetal personhood position is in the legal world, & I just can't see anybody of the Court's academic pedigrees - even somebody of ACB's originalist disposition - choosing to invoke it in an abortion case that manages to come before them.

Seriously, think about the position for more than a sec: say the Court were to hold to a strict originalist interpretation of the inclusion of the word "persons" within the Constitution so that it'd have to apply to unborn fetuses, meaning that they'd be protected by the 14th Amendment. Given that the Citizenship Clause clarifies that citizenship is only granted to people who are born in the United States, such an interpretation would mean that fetuses - although people - would have to be considered stateless persons. It's such legal insanity that I just can't see anybody capable of making it to the Court ever signing onto such a position.

The one I think might is not Barrett but Thomas — his language in Box v. Planned Parenthood certainly approaches that idea more than the writings of any of the other justices.

[I’m not Stu]

I’m not completely sure if Kavanaugh would declare fetal personhood. Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, and Barrett definitely would.

[brucejoel99]

I’m not completely sure if Kavanaugh would declare fetal personhood. Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, and Barrett definitely would.

"I neither read a word that anybody else posts in response to the 'questions' which I ask nor do I even attempt to offer anything in the form of actual evidence that would prove what I'm claiming to be true as well as the rationality thereof. Now, if you'll excuse me while I once again repeat my laughably unsubstantiated claim for the 5,742nd time tonight."

[NewYorkExpress]

Alito, and probably only Alito.

Both Kavanaugh and Thomas might have voted for it if they didn't have the sexual harrassment/sexual assault cases hanging over their head-they'll be looking for excuses to vote against it.

Roberts is probably a vote against, and he'll assign himself the majority opinion.

Coney Barrett is probably would be a vote for, depending on the case in question (does personhood mean that fetus have more rights than people who are born-I could see Coney Barrett ruling in a partial concurrence that fetus's are people, but that they have fewer rights than the already born, and she might get Kavanaugh and Thomas to sign on to that.)

[S019]

I honestly think you could get 5 votes for it, but Roberts for sure wouldn't vote for it mostly because he likes the court looking nonpartisan and declaring fetal personhood would obviously not do that.

[Skill and Chance]

2-4, but probably just 2.  Gorsuch is hardest to read on this IMO.

[I’m not Stu]

I honestly think you could get 5 votes for it, but Roberts for sure wouldn't vote for it mostly because he likes the court looking nonpartisan and declaring fetal personhood would obviously not do that.

This is an area where Kavanaugh would break from Roberts.

[brucejoel99]

I honestly think you could get 5 votes for it, but Roberts for sure wouldn't vote for it mostly because he likes the court looking nonpartisan and declaring fetal personhood would obviously not do that.

This is an area where Kavanaugh would break from Roberts.

But you literally just said in your last comment on this thread before this one that "[you're] not completely sure if Kavanaugh would declare fetal personhood." Now - less than 2 hours later - you're suddenly able to express as if it's a fact that "[t]his is an area where Kavanaugh would break from Roberts"? Literally what is the proof which you're basing such a statement on? Does anything that even resembles basic reasoning actually underlie your evidently obvious opinion on this matter? Jesus, why is your only purpose on this forum seemingly to just up your post count almost into the tens-of-thounsands range now without actually posting anything of semblance, let alone contributing anything of merit to the very discussions which - need you be reminded? - you yourself are starting 99.99% of the time on this board?

[freepcrusher]

zero. There's maybe 3-4 for overturning but out-and-out declaring abortion unconstitutional. Probably zero. Even before Roe, a few states had abortion.

[Kingpoleon]

In all seriousness, probably 0, & that's even with ACB on the Court. It just can't be understated how much of an extreme minority position the pro-life fetal personhood position is in the legal world, & I just can't see anybody of the Court's academic pedigrees - even somebody of ACB's originalist disposition - choosing to invoke it in an abortion case that manages to come before them.

Seriously, think about the position for more than a sec: say the Court were to hold to a strict originalist interpretation of the inclusion of the word "persons" within the Constitution so that it'd have to apply to unborn fetuses, meaning that they'd be protected by the 14th Amendment. Given that the Citizenship Clause clarifies that citizenship is only granted to people who are born in the United States, such an interpretation would mean that fetuses - although people - would have to be considered stateless persons. It's such legal insanity that I just can't see anybody capable of making it to the Court ever signing onto such a position.

It is interesting to note the phrase “All persons born...” seems to suggest that we are, indeed, people prior to birth. The following phrase “No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law,” taken alongside the prior phase, would probably be the basis of a ruling on fetal personhood. This certainly can be read as granting rights to noncitizen persons.

Here is the first call for state protection of the unborn:

“That, although your Petitioners are not his Majesty’s natural-born Subjects, nevertheless, being resident within his Dominions, they are by the Laws and Constitutions of his Kingdom entitled to protection”

[Donerail]

Seriously, think about the position for more than a sec: say the Court were to hold to a strict originalist interpretation of the inclusion of the word "persons" within the Constitution so that it'd have to apply to unborn fetuses, meaning that they'd be protected by the 14th Amendment. Given that the Citizenship Clause clarifies that citizenship is only granted to people who are born in the United States, such an interpretation would mean that fetuses - although people - would have to be considered stateless persons. It's such legal insanity that I just can't see anybody capable of making it to the Court ever signing onto such a position.

It is interesting to note the phrase “All persons born...” seems to suggest that we are, indeed, people prior to birth. The following phrase “No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law,” taken alongside the prior phase, would probably be the basis of a ruling on fetal personhood. This certainly can be read as granting rights to noncitizen persons.

I see you have chosen to torture the English language again. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" merely implies that there are people not born in the United States.

[Kingpoleon]

I see you have chosen to torture the English language again. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" merely implies that there are people not born in the United States.

An event cannot happen to a non entity. A noun, followed by an action verb, can be read as suggesting that the noun existed prior to the the verb; indeed, this is the best explanation based upon our understanding of spacetime.

Philosophically, I view the concept of personhood as nebulous. Without a definitive metaphysics, which is unlikely for a government to mandate, the very concept is not merely relatively arbitrary (as some laws are indeed bound to be) but wholly arbitrary. Without definitive priors, positive law is very difficult. However, this is not under philosophy: as such we are here for descriptive rather than normative claims; about what is rather than what ought to be.

[Sestak]

I see you have chosen to torture the English language again. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" merely implies that there are people not born in the United States.

An event cannot happen to a non entity. A noun, followed by an action verb, can be read as suggesting that the noun existed prior to the the verb; indeed, this is the best explanation based upon our understanding of spacetime.

If I say "I built a chair", does this imply that the chair had to exist before it was built? Does "Congress created the Department of Education" imply the DoE existed before it was created?

I didn't anticipate this thread could become even more ridiculous than it already is, but congratulations!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I see you have chosen to torture the English language again. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" merely implies that there are people not born in the United States.

An event cannot happen to a non entity. A noun, followed by an action verb, can be read as suggesting that the noun existed prior to the the verb; indeed, this is the best explanation based upon our understanding of spacetime.

So what is the meaning of the statement "all cars built in the United States"? Is this meant to distinguish them from cars built outside the United States, or to imply that the cars somehow existed before they were built?

[Kingpoleon]

So what is the meaning of the statement "all cars built in the United States"? Is this meant to distinguish them from cars built outside the United States, or to imply that the cars somehow existed before they were built?

Excellent! One person at least has a conceptualization of linguistics, and thus I can go on to my point.

The problem here is that on this particular issue, the reading of the Constitution cannot be “a view from nowhere.” We must either presuppose personhood begins after birth, or we must presuppose it begins prior to birth. Because the Court does its best to rule value free, the questions raised in my posts are unlikely to be answered by it.

The question is whether postmodernist critics of modern legal theory are correct as to what this entails: Does it mean there must be a view from somewhere on every ruling? Or does it merely mean there is a view from somewhere on some issues that indicate some rulings are wholly impossible?

[Kingpoleon]

If I say "I built a chair", does this imply that the chair had to exist before it was built? Does "Congress created the Department of Education" imply the DoE existed before it was created?

I didn't anticipate this thread could become even more ridiculous than it already is, but congratulations!

Missing the point, but regardless:

The acting noun in each sentence, IE “Congress” and “I” existed prior to the action verb and the direct object. More precisely, a subject always exists prior to action verbs unless said action verb is some form of existence.

For example:
“The earth began to exist when....”
“Babies begin to exist when...”

Unless we are asserting the person did not even exist prior to birth, which seems to beg the question, it is logical to conclude that a subject usually exists prior to an action verb which it undertakes.