Post 250 is NOT my quote or my words except for "Ya, people, born people"" Altering quotes is not nice..... from the Declaration of Independence : """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. """"
FWIW, the DOI says: Do you think the phrase "all men" must include the unborn? The 14th Amendment states: That's pretty explicit. The unborn really aren't mentioned.
Does it refer to person, personhood or born or birth.. no However using logic less tenuous than yours i could say it doesnt include women and that women are not created equal and do not have these rights... but we wouldnt do that we wouldnt be so hatefull to try to use the document that way that is not the intention of the document... it referes to men as in mankind as in all human beings and that include children in the womb
I don't know if Jefferson had the unborn in mind when drafting the document so it's debatable. In any case, the 14th specifies that those entitled to the protection of our laws are born or naturalized. The unborn are not included. See my last post (#253)
So you refuse to read anything that you won't agree with.....ya even got the Constitution mixed up with the Declaration of Independence and the quote garbled.... Just for you: The 14th Amendment 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. ""
That's right, and pro-choicers are seeking to take away the legal rights of the unborn by denying their personhood the same way Dred Scott v. Sandford sought to cast aside the legal rights of African Americans by denying their citizenship status.
That theory of yours has been blown apart so many times.....why do you keep regurgitating it? The 14th Amendment states: All persons born
I do appologise 1. I am european 2. I was at work when i posted and had to be quick The 14th ammendment First its an amendment or an after thought. To use this as proof positive that anortion is a constitutional right is mental gymnastics. It is clearly put in place to distingush between the rights of those citizens who are born or nationallised in the united states and those born in another part of the world. This amendment does not superceed the right to life that is endowed upon all men. I can prove this is the case very simply by showing that even if a non citizen a human being visiting the u.s has the right to life proteced under the consitution...no citizen can legally kill him simply because he is not a citizen neither can the state kill him without due process. Even if the tourist was a pregnant female you still could not kill her or her child on the grounds she or her child were not "persons" born in the usa... this proves beyond doubt that the right to life of all men created equal superceeds amendement 14
Why don't you read it ? 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 Amendments to the Constitution are not "afterthoughts" to be discarded on a whim... And those key words, "all persons BORN", are very important....maybe not to a European but it's vital to the abortion debate
Why is Human life special? It isn't....unless we make it so. Beware the thoughts you put in the heads of the next generation. You will deteriorate as they get stronger. You'll be no match for them when they come to take you to the Soylent Green factory.
We have no laws prohibiting abortion. We did have one but it was struck down by our SC in 1988. The govt. then tried to get a new law passed, but did not get enough votes and since then no govt has tried. Your opponent is mistaken about the Canada Health Act. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-6/page-1.html#h-4
the species that are capable of asking the question and prioritizing the importance of various life-forms have an inherent bias towards one answer over the others. Flowers, sow bugs, goats, and guppies do not perform well in philosophy or writing classes and thus they do not write persuasive dissertations defending their exalted place in the hierarchy of life
"Abortion in Canada(*)is legal at any point in a woman's pregnancy for any reason, and is governed by the Canada Health Act.[1](*)While some non-legal obstacles exist,Canada(*)is one of only a few nations with nolegal restrictions(*)on(*)abortion.[2][3](*)Regulations and accessibility vary between(*)provinces.[4] Early in Canadian history, all abortions were illegal. The(*)Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69(*)introduced by(*)Pierre Trudeau'sLiberal(*)government legalized abortion" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada There are laws permiting abortion therefore the state declares itself as supreme authority over humanity
Actually it was the pro-life side that first made abortion a political and legal issue by enacting anti-abortion legislation at the state level in the late 1800's. Roe was a counter to those measures, and the government had already attributed itself the authority to determine the right to life by endorsing executions, war and self-defence killings .. even the 2nd amendment attributes the right to take life to ALL usa citizens.
great, let me know when you find the right for a person to use another persons body to sustain their life without consent . .you do under stand what the equal protection clause is don't you? - - - Updated - - - correct, equal protection under the law ie the state cannot offer a right to one group of people that it does not offer to all people . .so tell me how the state can offer the right to a fetus to use another persons body without consent if it does not offer the same right to all other people?
