Skip to comments.Alabama Supreme Court: “Unborn Children Are Persons With Rights”
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 drugsone, cocaine, and the second, methamphetaminewhile 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 ...
What is “organic law”? Sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me. The Declaration absolutely did not begin the Republic. The Republic took form with the Constitution. Before that, it was states united under the Articles of Confederation. Before that, states united under the Continental Congress. Before that, colonies of the British empire.
There was no mystical bond running beneath the different arrangements rendering them one republic, eternal. Arguing otherwise cheapens the meaning of the Constitution, among other things. It also spits on the true place of the states, which us not as parts of an organic whole but entities unto themselves. They are the real thing, the underlying thing, not the Republic.
By the way, presumably the various charters and such establishing the colonies under British rule aren’t part of your organic US law. Why? Apparently only everything after declaration of independence matters. After that it’s one nation, indivisible. But why? The Continental Congress didn’t last. What if it hadn’t been replaced by the Articles? Would we still have been a republic? What if there hadn’t been a coup backed up by popular referendum to establish the Constitution? Still a republic, even without the current form of government? What if the North had let the South go or the Confederates won the war? Still a republic, even if we are two? Or more?
This line of speculation soon careens into silliness. Had we won the War if 1812 you’d be saying Canadian states were always part of the mystical republic. Should Pietro Rico had become a state by now you’d have said the same. Had we never expanded past the Northwest Ordinance you’d be saying who or whatever to the West wasn’t ever really America.
For me how and why we are a republic and not a confederacy matters. The Constitution makes a difference. Whatever we would have been without the 87 coup, it is not what we are.
The Organic Laws of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States. U.S. Code (2007) defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.
That is not a position on how to get the law changed. Are you incapable of being honest?
It’s not that I’m ignorant. I’ve heard the phrase before. Sarcasm is tough to convey on the internet. Organic law is BS, is all. At best it’s something to teach kiddies in place of complicated truth.
By the way, why stop at the Declaration? Why not the colonial charters or the Mayflower Compact? Why not the various state constitutions? Why not Magna Carta or the freaking Decalogue? Because the only mumbo-jumbo they’re interested in is nationalistic mumbo-jumbo.
Since liberals claim that a fetus is just a clump of cells, tell them they are also a clump of cells. Then ask them if you can abort them on the spot. If they say “That would be murder”, ask them again if abortion is murder. I’ve had liberals turn around and leave muttering to themselves.
Because they're not written into the U.S. Code?