Grouch Trashes Fox News

Dude does anyone remember seasame street in grouch speak trashy=good so really complimenting pox news

Jim Henson would never have allowed the real oscar to be seen outside his trashcan. This is an obvious forgery..

Oh my... How have the comments on this page gotten around to abortion and fetuses? Goodness people! Chill out! I'm not for trashing Fox News, but "SpeakaDaEnglish": you're being a major douche bag. Take a Valium.

They said it's really Pox news, not Fox, I cant still hear Fox though

Emerald: Why restrict your acrobatic logic to abortion? Why not substitute the word "biological support" for "state support" (since you like redefinition so much) where you can describe an entire class of non persons living off the government. Isn't it time they get off of Obammy's tit? Maybe it's time they grow out of their non personhood, into personhood, and then adulthood where the rest of us live and have to pay the bills. I'd like to see a Sotomayor sell us that one.

Redefinition? Tell me, what do YOU define as a person? What has Congress EVER defined as a person, entitled to the rights and protections of the Constitution? Oh and here's a clue for you, Social Welfare has existed from the BEGINNING of society. YOU dear fellow are benefiting beyond your imagination off the whole of society. We've created governments to keep that society healthy and ensure social justice. Obama is in the process of repairing the Bush damage to those things.

'Obammy's tit'...

Wow, that's some Conservative CLASS for ya, right there...

You have now reversed the order of events and thrown away the imposed verbiage in order to nullify what really happened. The word fetus is no where to be found or any provision as to where life begins, they knew they couldn't determine the subtext if the text wasn't there which was why the word fetus HAD to be substituted with "non-person".

This was meaning imposed on a word not found in order to make the argument fit the agenda. That is where the rule of law flew out the window because that is not an interpretation based on any implied meaning of personhood, it's pure invention.
re: 3/5ths. There is no mention of "non personhood" even with regard to property as in the case of persons called slaves. They are called persons over and over so your point is moot.

The simple fact of the matter is that the U.S. Constitution makes explicit references to People and Persons. The further fact of the matter is there are SIGNIFICANT differences between what we define as a living, breathing, thinking, doing, independent PERSON and what a fetus is (and for that matter an embryo, blastacyst or zygote). Until an Amendment is written that explicitly defines what constitutes a person (protected by Constitutional law), the courts CAN make that determination.