Some liberals got very upset when the Supreme Court decided…

May 7th, 2010

…that a corporation is a person.

But they didn’t seem all that bothered when the Court determined that a fetus wasn’t.

Entry Filed under: Observations

17 Comments Add your own

  • 1. grumps  |  May 7th, 2010 at 9:25 am

    Not really the same thing at all. Is it?

  • 2. Debunked  |  May 7th, 2010 at 9:40 am

    That is just a completely invalid analogy.

    Clearly, the only entities defined as people are those entities that control something of monetary value. Fetus’ obviously have no money so they can not possibly be defined as a person.

    The corollary to this, of course, is that extremely impoverished “entities” are likewise not seen as people. That’s why it just doesn’t matter how many of these “things” we kill.

  • 3. Dan  |  May 7th, 2010 at 10:22 am

    Debunked- WTF????
    Ok, for a person to be a person, they have to have some control of money? What about a severely disabled person who does not have the knowledge about money- are they not human beings. Same with elderly with severe dementia.
    hopefully, you were being sarcastic.

  • 4. TerryN  |  May 7th, 2010 at 11:07 am

    I doubt it. It a sick world.

  • 5. Debunked  |  May 7th, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    “What about a severely disabled person who does not have the knowledge about money?”

    No knowledge of money? They’re a communist. Kill ’em.

    “Same with elderly with severe dementia.”

    Insufficient data for meaningful answer. Did they spend all their money on health care? Do they have children with money who will take care of them? I will need more information to qualify these entities as people or not.

  • 6. Dan  |  May 7th, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    You’re an idiot, debunked.

  • 7. Elliot  |  May 7th, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    I actually don’t think anyone who visits here regularly is an idiot. (Except, of course, for the fact that they visit here regularly.) ;)

  • 8. John Foust  |  May 7th, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    It’s a slippery slope, you see. Today you’re saying that corporations are people, next thing you know, they’ll be declaring guns to be people with a right to ammo, they’ll be letting two guns get married even if they’re not the same caliber, cars will be having sex and demanding a right to subsidized gasoline and a guaranteed parking place. Signs and portents, signs and wonders.

    Hey, Debunked! If I have enough dough, can I buy the right to vote for a person who’s not all quite there? Why not? What can I force someone else to do, if I get enough votes to say so?

  • 9. Alexander  |  May 7th, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Monetary worth qualifies the right of personhood.
    Hmm, sounds like the guidelines for obamacare…

  • 10. John Foust  |  May 7th, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    Alex, that’s not even a zinger and it doesn’t even make sense.

  • 11. Eric Francis  |  May 8th, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    This is the kind of tit for tat thinking that loses sight of the issues. Whether someone ELSE has an abortion does not affect you. Whether society fairly or unfairly takes away a personal right affects you. If “fetuses are declared people” then we will ban the LEGAL practice of abortion and enter the back room phase; and the phase of safe abortions only for the rich.

    A corporation was declared a person a long time ago, by an erroneous reading of the 1886 _Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad_ decision, that became accepted by the courts. It’s not that the newer decision (there have been many) makes corporations equal to people — it gives them more rights than people, including “immigrants” — foreign corporations that suddenly have a greater voice in US politics than any ordinary mortal born and bred on US soil.

    I think that if “conservatives” should have an issue with this decision this is the place to start. It allows a foreign corporations and all the money they make on us to undermine our democratic process even more than it is.

    At a certain point, common sense and practicality have to trump ideology, But we seem a long way from there.

    Trust me — the “conservatives” in congress who use the red herring of abortion DO NOT CARE about anything other than the fact that it gets the groundlings riled up. It’s a tool; you are their tool; they would get their daughter to an abortionist as fast as any “liberal” — if that is what they wanted to do.

  • 12. Alexander  |  May 9th, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    Oh, thats okay.

  • 13. Elliot  |  May 10th, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Eric,

    I’m unaffected whenever someone kills someone who is not close to me…that doesn’t make it right.

    And prohibiting foreign corporations from having the same right to speak as American ones will probably past Constitutional muster.

    And I remember when liberals were the leading defenders of the First Amendment. Sigh.

  • 14. Eric Francis  |  May 10th, 2010 at 10:10 am

    I think that to compare the fetus issue with the corporation issue is an unfair mix, creating unnecessary contention. If we are going to contrast two issues, they should be abortion and the death penalty. Why is it that the ‘conservative’ view denies the right to abortion and affirms the state’s right to commit homicide — even given the astonishing number of people who are exculpated after convictions and appeals have run out? In Illinois — the record was 13 executed and 13 exculpated when the governor pulled the plug on the death chamber. That is, if it matters to you whether the executed are “guilty” or “innocent” — we are all innocent in the eyes of God, or so says Christian theology.

  • 15. Elliot  |  May 10th, 2010 at 10:14 am

    I’m conflicted on the death penalty.

    I’m not comfortable with the state killing people.

    On the other hand, if I knew for a fact that someone had tortured and murdered a child, I’d be happy to push the button myself.

    And you guys actually took this a lot more seriously than I meant it.

    I just found it to be an interesting juxtaposition.

  • 16. Debunked  |  May 10th, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Despite my extremely satirical musings above whooshing over Dan’s head, I’m, frankly, not sure what is at all interesting or noteworthy about your comparison here.

    Your analogy:

    – Liberals “don’t want a corporation to be considered a person.”
    – Liberals “don’t want a fetus to be considered a person.”

    Sounds to be like a pretty consistent viewpoint, to me.

    Contrast that with “conservatives want a fetus to be considered persons” but then don’t want to help those same children that would be aborted after they have been born.

    Or… “conservatives claim to be pro-life but pro-death penalty.”

  • 17. Elliot  |  May 10th, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    To be more explicit:

    I find it a tad odd that the Supreme Court has decided that a Corporation (which is clearly less human than a fetus) is a “person,” but a fetus is not.

    Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta