Posted on 06/09/2022 9:20:12 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
Last month, in response to the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinon ending Roe v. Wade, the Louisiana legislature briefly considered a bill that would define a fetus as a person for the purpose of the state’s homicide law...... on page 16 of the draft opinion, Alito cites a brief by John M. Finnis and Robert P. George that argues that fetuses are legal people. Finnis and George are clearly wrong, though. This issue has already been considered and decided by the Reconstruction-era Congress. They definitively determined that fetuses do not count as “persons” for purposes of the 14th Amendment, as Finnis and George argue.....
The original public legal meaning of “persons” encompassed all human beings. On this, the legal meaning fixed by treatises and cases was confirmed by rapid mid-1800s expansions of prenatal protections. … the inclusion of children in utero could not have been blocked except by wording (easily available, but neither proposed nor adopted) such as “any person wherever born.”
From this they conclude that the history of the original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment:
proves prohibitions of elective abortions [are] constitutionally obligatory because unborn children are persons within the original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.......
Many of us are familiar with the great clauses of Section 1.
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, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
If per the Constitution there are "persons born", there is inference of "persons unborn" which are therefore persons.
So when the Constitution states "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, " that means "persons born" AND "persons unborn".
IMHO
“Persons born” is a subset of “Persons”. Try again, Slate.
I am afraid the authors cranial rectilitus has already progressed to cerebral fecaloma.
He has to go all the way back to the medical mindset during reconstruction to defend his opinion. I think they were still doing bloodlettings and using leaches back then.
The author might want to check with Scott Peterson to see if fetuses are considered persons or not.
There can be no constitutional right to murder.
They’re doing exactly the same thing that tyrants have been doing for thousands of years; dehumanize the enemy when you’re at war with them. In this case they were at war with babies in the womb
So it’s legal to kill an illegal alien?
Because the Founding Fathers, most having theological degrees, would make damn sure we’d be a nation that wouldn’t protect its unborn children.
What an idiot.
“Finnis and George are clearly wrong.” False.
Finnis and Geogre are not wrong. Both scholars are brilliant legal analysts authoring many books with footnotes and stuff. Slate is still dead.
Theodoric of York!
We just need an unelected board to define fetus as a person the same way they define gene therapy as a vaccine.
>> So it’s legal to kill an illegal alien?
Seems that way — according to Rosin’s tortured reasoning.
When you declare some people to be non-persons it becomes legal to enslave them, to send them to gas chambers, or to abort them.
“So it’s legal to kill an illegal alien?”
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution states:
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, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The last sentence in this paragraph from the 14th amendment is the telling. Not only are they saying you can kill an illegal because the fetus hasn’t reached citizenship status, but if you find a pregnant woman from another state that isn’t a citizen of the state she is in but a US citizen, the child can be killed at that point as it has no representation. So, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. But until they make a law determining what is a person, they can continue to kill fetus and not completely born children, awake, with a heartbeat, and possibly screaming like partial birth abortion. But you notice it didn’t say citizen...it said person.
wy69
And slaves were property according to the Democrat Taney Supreme Court.
But foreign nationals breaking into America and robbing our treasury are? Bull....!
It sounds like Mikey is looking for another segment of humanity to pick on since it’s too dangerous to pick on blacks these days. What a scumbag.
Sounds like the logic used for the Dred Scott decision.
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.