>>>>>Of course, now I'm confused as to what Fred's position is.
You always seem somewhat confused. And you're perpetual rants lead me to believe, you're out to confuse the world. LOL
>>>>>That is incorrect. I understand and respect the Constitution. Our disagreement is on whether the preborn is a person.
Sorry. You haven't convinced me yet. Like you said. The Founders did not have the knowledge we have today. You can't read something into the Constitution that isn't there. That is called Constitutional activism and the reason why we have Roe v Wade today. In the days of the Founders, a fetus didn't have any rights and with few exceptions, the fetus still has little protection under law. The unborn fetus definitely doesn't have the rights accorded a born person.
Thats why like Reagan, I support a HLA added to the Constitution that would protect the unborn. Even though it remains a long shot.
>>>>>This is an argument about what is right, not about what the constitution says.
In your mind. That is why the Constitution has such little meaning to you. You don't have enough respect to even capitalize it. Freudian slip?
That's not what Ronald Reagan thought.
"Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing."
"We have the duty to protect the life of an unborn child."
"Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
But, the question is, do you support the other important part of the Reagan pro-life platform, which remains in force to this day, which recognizes the personhood of the unborn, and calls for their protection therefore under the Fourteenth Amendment.
As to the issue of the constitution, my argument was about the rights of persons, not what rights are recognized by the constitution. I wasn't arguing about something under existing constitutional law, I was arguing about rights people had before there even was a constitution.
That the founders didn't recognize the application of rights to some people doesn't mean they don't have those rights, as my slavery example shows. In 1830, if you had forcibly removed a slave from it's owner, you would have been violating both the law and the Constitution. But nobody today would argue that it would be the WRONG thing to do.
What is Fred's position? I've heard two, tell me which is right, if either: 1) Fred opposes the HLA amendment and won't run under it, or 2) Fred doesn't think HLA can be implemented but doesn't oppose it on principle.
If neither of those is right, please explain what his position currently is.
Last thing, you said "with few exceptions, the fetus still has little protection under law. The unborn fetus definitely doesn't have the rights accorded a born person".
Here you are mixing law and right. You are absolutely correct that the fetus has little protection uner the law. However, I believe that the unborn baby DOES have the rights accorded a born person. For example in the few days bofore being born, I believe the preborn has EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS as a baby that has been born.
That we don't RECOGNIZE those rights don't mean the pre-born doesn't have those rights. The rights of the preborn person are inalienable, not granted by man, but from God. We are arguing over how or whether our constitution should be clarified to recognize the right, but the Constitution does not grant or confer those rights, the rights exist whether we recognize them or not.