Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Sherman Logan
...but I recognize that the Constitution says nothing about it. Therefore it defaults to state control.

The only way that conclusion can logically be reached is to agree with the Roe court that an unborn child is not a person re the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.

And to ignore the fact that abortion makes the fulfillment of any clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution impossible.

276 posted on 07/23/2015 7:08:15 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The judicial supremacist lie has killed 60 million innocents. Stop it before it kills America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies ]


To: EternalVigilance

I’ve read the Roe decision, and I think its determination that a fetus is not “a person” within the meaning of the Constitution and its amendments is correct.

Certainly none of the Founders had any idea they were prohibiting abortion, which was widely practiced at the time.

Here’s James Wilson, one of the Founders:

“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.[6]”

Their understanding of fetal life was of course flawed, but I’m not sure we’re entitled to retrospectively change the meaning of the Constitution as desired. To me such a Constitution is a little too living.

I respect those who believe otherwise, but that’s my opinion.


283 posted on 07/23/2015 7:25:09 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson