Posted on 06/08/2012 1:21:30 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Because if the child in the womb is a person the argument is over. They are obviously protected by the explicit, imperative words of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of our land.
Let’s try this from another angle:
Can you provide me with some evidence that the child in the womb is something other than a human person?
Prior to 1973 terminating a pregnancy prematurely was legal in all states, because a physician consider the issues as having TWO patients to try and save but one was near impossible to save (the alive unborn child if too premature) so the physician worked to save the other patient. In medicine, the alive unborn child WAS a person prior to the demonic Blackmon court ruling. ... And the insanity of the disconnect is astonishing when one but considers the fatc that funerals are not scheduled for non-entities, even for dog entities. The parents losing a child prematurely usually had a funeral for their lost child. But with Blackmon and the Roe v Wade black robed oligarchical runling, the alive unborn were suddenly ‘not human beings’ to the progressive devils.
Many of the founders, including the father of the Constitution, James Madison, opposed the addition of a Bill of Rights, for the simple reason that they feared that to begin to delineate rights might infer that the people's rights were confined only to those that were listed.
They lost that political debate and were forced as the first act of the new Congress to set in motion the amendment of the Constitution to add a Bill of Rights.
But they were careful to add the Ninth Amendment, which says:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You see, they well understood that the God-given rights of the people, starting with the right to life, precede and supersede any human constitution or written law.
They understood that the right to life is unalienable.
Unalienable:
incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
And so, even if you want to ignore the explicit, imperative requirements of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, abortion is, and always has been, completely illegitimate and unlawful.
This is why I always am careful to say that abortion violates God's law, the natural law, the natural law moral principles of the Declaration of Independence, every stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution, and that document's explicit, imperative requirements, which are binding on every single officer of government in America, in every branch, and at every level.
-- Augustine"An unjust law is no law at all."
And a modern statement of fact that bears greatly on this crucial question:
-- Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 'illegal.'"
Then you're asking me to accept the premise that the people who wrote and ratified the Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth amendments intended for it to outlaw the practice of abortion, and then forgot to do it.
How dumb do you think they were?
How are you going to determine their intent if you ignore the meanings of the words they put in the document?
Read their other writings and look at how they applied the law themselves after it was ratified.
Ignore people who try to tell me doing that is "ignoring the words".
That'show I'm going to do it. Are you going to do it at all?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Are babies people?
Is the right to life of innocents alienable, or unalienable?
Every reference in the Constitution to individulals that I can find starts from birth - from the calculation of a person's age for purposes of military service or holding public office to questions of country of citizenship. All predicated on time or place of birth. They made no reference to time or place of conception, and make no recognition of the person before birth.
If there's any reference there to recognition of "personhood" prior to birth, I'll be happy to consider it if you can show me where it is.
"No State shall deprive ANY person of life without due process of law; nor deny to ANY person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL protection of the laws."
Because I have never seen such. It certainly isn't in the Amendment itself, as my highlighted words above show.
"No" means no. "Any" means any. "Equal protection" means equal protection.
The burden is on you to prove that they would have in any way countenanced the alienation of the supreme right of more than fifty million innocent persons, so far.
Having ratified the amendment, they did not then proceed to ban abortion. If that had been the intent of the amendment, they would have done that immediatly upon ratification. The practice of abortion remained within the jurisdiction of the individual states, where it has always resided.
The Fourteenth Amendment, in its Article One, makes a clear distinction, in two separate clauses, between the privileges and immunities of citizens, which commence at birth, and the rights of all PERSONS, starting with the right to life. The two groups of persons are treated separately, necessarily.
All citizens are persons. All persons are not citizens. But the latter’s God-given rights are guaranteed equally within every jurisdiction nonetheless.
Citizenship begins at birth. Personhood does not. It’s self-evident.
Do you really believe they were that dumb?
So? It was considered heinous, and beyond the pale. They didn't have some obligation to outlaw every conceivable atrocity that could ever be committed. All they had to do was require the protection of all persons. Which they did.
If that had been the intent of the amendment, they would have done that immediatly upon ratification.
Really? Did they immediately outlaw killing redheads who are between the ages of five and six?
The practice of abortion remained within the jurisdiction of the individual states, where it has always resided.
Where it probably would have stayed if States did not begin to allow the butchering of millions of innocent persons, contrary to the oaths their officers all had sworn both to support the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of their own States, which all require the equal protection of the right to life of all persons.
They wrote an amendment that protects all persons.
And you refuse to state clearly whether or not you believe unborn children ARE persons, or, whether you agree with the Roe court that they are not. Since you're now asserting that the Constitution only applies to born people, notwithstanding the fact that the stated purpose of the document is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity," the latter is looking like a real possibility.
The only reason I can think of someone would do this is that they don't believe they could get that amendment to pass.
That means you're intending to transfer power to the national government without the consent of the States, and to enact law without the consent of the governed.
There is no legitimate power to alienate the God-given, unalienable right to life of any innocent person. Never has been, never will be.
When it comes to the equal protection of innocent human life, all there is is the absolute duty to protect it.
This is the raison d'etre, or reason for being, of all legitimate governments.
This is the defining first principle of this free republic.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
The consent of the governed, without those self-evident truths, can amount lead to arbitrary mob rule, not constitutional, republican self-government.
The consent of the governed, without the principles of our Declaration, can produce a Gaza, but not the United States of America.
And there is no legitimate power of the federal government to enforce that. It resides with the States. If you want that power transferred to the federal government, do it right and get an amendment so that the States get an opportunity to debate that issue and decide if they want to give them that power. Don't try to claim they already voted on it over 140 years ago, but didn't understand what it was they were voting on.
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.