Posted on 12/30/2009 10:32:33 AM PST by EternalVigilance
I agree that all human beings are persons in the precise sense of the word, as they are unique human beings since conception.
However, by making a reference to the “person” language in the Constitution, you are confusing the usage in the Consitution, which rightly can only refer to a person born, with the natural law consideration that I would like promoted. See clause 1: is explicitly refers to persons “born”. But the Constitution does not intend to create a distinction between person and a human being. It simply does not address the unborn persons.
Abortion is wrong regardless what any formal law, including the Constitution, has to say about it.
Actually, it is you who is confusing the application of the word person in the Constitution. In the Fourteenth Amendment a distinction is made between citizens and persons, but never between individual persons based on their level of development.
Your claim that it can only apply to those persons who are born is as arbitrary as Blackmun’s conclusions.
One further point: the Constitution’s own stated ultimate purpose is “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our POSTERITY.”
The word “posterity” has a very specific and literal meaning.
She is referring to the large number of young (post-birth) deaths that occur in large poverty families and saying that their deaths (due to disease and malnuturian and abuse, NOT ABORTION) were probably merciful compared to their continued existence in these families.
I doubt Bill Clinton could have parsed this any better. To "kill" has a specific meaning and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with death from natural causes.
If I were to ever look you in the eye and tell you that I am going to kill you bet your ass I don't mean I am going to stand there for a few years waiting for you to die.
Absolutely. It is a violation of God's Law, the natural law, the founding principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence, of the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States, and also of the constitutions of all fifty states in the union.
I agree on substance, but the text includes the word "born" qualifying "person".
The problem is:
“all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
is a thoroughly Jewish/Christian concept.
Those who reject theism, or really the Jewish/Christian versions of it, also reject the idea that persons are made in the image of God, that are thereby especially “endowed by the Creator...”, and one can scream “PERSON!” ‘til you’re blue in the face, and it won’t matter.
It’s ultimately not a question of whether a pre-born baby is a person or not—every thoughtful person knows they are, pro-abortion or pro-life...it’s whether persons are made in God’s image, and are therefore of the utmost value.
The pro-aborts just through the non-person stuff around to try to fool the naive...they know very well babies are persons—they just don’t value persons, that’s all.
Then they are in truth no longer part of the Declaration’s “we.” Sadly.
America’s first premise is that our rights are the gift of God, not the endowment of any man.
All persons physically located on our territory, citizen or not, have always had their unalienable rights protected under our laws.
Mark my words, if we’re not starting to undergo it now, but within 5 or 10 years—when the WWII generation is gone—America will suffer tremendous trials and tribulation.
God’s judgement over abortion and other evils of America will not sleep forever...
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life...
The text begins by defining citizens as persons "born", not just "persons". It then speaks about such persons' rights.
It is true that people have rights not enumerated in the Amendments. Aliens have rights. Just don't make it as if the Constitution uses "persons" in a way that covers the unborn. It doesn't.
Exactly which part of “any person within its jurisdiction” are you failing to understand?
I agree that (1) abortion is a form of murder so that civilized nations should prosecute it and that (2) our liberties will be lost if we allow abortion regime to go on.
I don’t agree that the Consitution necessarily envisages personhood in the unborn.
I wish it were different.
The winning tactic is to explain that abortion is murder regardless of the text of the Constitution, just like any other murder. We don’t go on saying that running people over with cars should be banned because the Constitution forbids it. Running people over with cars is a murder regardless of the Constitution. Abortion is murder because it is a killing of an innocent human being, whether a parent or anyone else has bonded with him as a person or not, certainly whether the Constitution has mentioned it or not.
“person” is explained in the same article as “born” or “naturalized”. So, it is reasonable that the entire article refers to born persons.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You are making the same destructive error that this entire generation of politicians and lawyers has made for more than thirty five years: you are making a constitutional and legal distinction that does not exist in reality.
Persons are persons, no matter how small.
It's not reasonable at all. All citizens are persons, but not all persons are citizens.
And you have no right to alienate the God-given rights of non-citizen persons under our Constitution. To claim that you can is to take the Fourteenth Amendment completely out of context, and to ignore all precedent and common sense.
Thanks, EV. Any Personhood Ohio?
Your argument is “Because 2+2 is 4, the Constitution says so”. The truth is, this is something not contemplated by the Constitution, so don’t make a constitutional argument for it. Would abortion be any less wrong in a country without any constitution?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.