Posted on 01/16/2013 6:32:30 PM PST by Olog-hai
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled in a case on Friday that “unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law.”
The case involved two women who had been charged under a “chemical endangerment” law because they had ingested illegal drugs—one, cocaine, and the second, methamphetamine—while pregnant. …
In its concluding remarks, the Alabama Supreme Court said: “The decision of this Court today is in keeping with the widespread legal recognition that unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law. Today, the only major area in which unborn children are denied legal protection is abortion, and that denial is only because of the dictates of Roe.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
That's right.
So, you’ve finally changed your mind and seen my wisdom on this? Excellent!
I don’t know about that “charter” business? The “united states” of the Declaration isn’t the same U.S. that came into being with ratification of the Constitution. There were two whole systems of national government inbetween.
Huh?
Not formally. The ruling would still stand without ever having been directly challenged but it would be rendered irrelevant.
****************************************
Roe could be upheld and abortion banned .. Roe has provisions that self-nullify the ruling if “medical science” advances and shows the fetus to be a distinct human life etc. etc. etc.
We used to have knock down drag out fights over this. My position was that the states had to make their own law and it would then be challenged in the courts. Regardless of whether the state made abortion legal or illegal it would be challenged. Then the case could finally be made that unborn humans were human and should be afforded the legal status of ‘person’ and that it would win. Once one state set the precedent through the Federal appeals process and the legal status of ‘person’ was upheld all other states would be bound by that without room for further appeal. You adamantly opposed my POV on that.
That is another way it could be done but the chances of a case being made in the courts on that are far lower than this avenue.
We’ve had DNA testing for what ?? 30 years .. and the evidence needed for a clear attack on Roe... The truth is a pretty difficult thing to overcome.
To say that the Declaration is not part of our laws is like claiming that the foundation is not part of a building, or that a body can be sustained without the presence of a soul.
-- John Quincy Adams, the Jubilee of the U.S. Constitution: a Discourse "Fellow-citizens, the ark of your covenant is the Declaration of Independence. Your Mount Ebal, is the confederacy of separate state sovereignties, and your Mount Gerizim is the Constitution of the United States. In that scene of tremendous and awful solemnity, narrated in the Holy Scriptures, there is not a curse pronounced against the people, upon Mount Ebal, not a blessing promised them upon Mount Gerizim, which your posterity may not suffer or enjoy, from your and their adherence to, or departure from, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, practically interwoven in the Constitution of the United States. Lay up these principles, then, in your hearts, and in your souls - bind them for signs upon your hands, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes - teach them to your children, speaking of them when sitting in your houses, when walking by the way, when lying down and when rising up - write them upon the doorplates of your houses, and upon your gates - cling to them as to the issues of life - adhere to them as to the cords of your eternal salvation. So may your children's children at the next return of this day of jubilee, after a full century of experience under your national Constitution, celebrate it again in the full enjoyment of all the blessings recognized by you in the commemoration of this day, and of all the blessings promised to the children of Israel upon Mount Gerizim, as the reward of obedience to the law of God."
True, but the truth is worth a thing until you get it in front of a court.
Nonsense. My position hasn’t changed one iota.
The right to life is God-given and therefore unalienable. It is the absolute duty of every officer of government, at every level, in every branch, to provide equal protection for every innocent human life. It’s not optional. It is imperative.
All of that is non-sequitur to the position you took which opposed the position I took. You opposed my state’s rights stance then and you’re embracing it now.
No. You simply didn’t understand. I’m thinking you still don’t.
I understand. You’ve mastered the politician’s shuck and jive dance very well. No matter to me. I was right and what I said should happen is going to happen and whether it’s this ruling in Alabama or a law made in another state sooner or later unborn humans will be afforded the legal status of ‘person.’ That will be the end of abortion on demand and even you will get what you want in spite of haranguing against the means to accomplish it as if it were worse than abortion itself.
This is the most fundamental principle of American self-government.
"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..."
That is not and was not the argument. I have always accepted those principles as unassailable. The disagreement was about how to get the law, on all levels, in accord with that. The fact that you still don’t get that says a lot about how little you are capable of understanding. It’s unbelievable that you are still conflating the core principles with the means of changing the law. There is no correlation between the two. None. The first are immutable perfect truths of life. The second are simply the imperfect ways and means of human interaction.
Again, my position hasn’t changed one iota.
I can’t help it if you don’t understand it, even though it is incredibly simple, and has apparently been explained to you again and again.
Trying to reason with you is like trying to reason with Al Gorezeera. You just can’t or won’t participate. Intellectual honesty is not a sin you know.
"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..."
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.