This is the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges 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."
It seems to me that the Supreme Court has to decide whether the fetus has an overriding right to life or not. If it does, then it has to protect that right from coast to coast. If the fetus doesn't have that right, then the mother has rights that have to be protected. What would be a logical absurdity would be to say that a fetus has a right to life in Texas but not in California.
11 comments:
VR: "It seems to me that the Supreme Court has to decide ..."
Will you ever outgrow this fetishization of the Supreme Court? I've explained in a lengthy post some weeks ago that the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself extra-Constitutional -- which means un-or-even-anti-Constitutional -- authorities; that most of what it does is based on authority it does not have.
VR: "This is the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
...
It seems to me that the Supreme Court has to decide whether the fetus has an overriding right to life or not. If it does, then it has to protect that right from coast to coast. If the fetus doesn't have that right, then the mother has rights that have to be protected. What would be a logical absurdity would be to say that a fetus has a right to life in Texas but not in California."
Will you ever outgrow this childish/"liberal" Civics 101 misconception of what the US Constitution is? The US Constitution is not about defining nor protecting our rights, it is about defining and limiting the scope of Federal authorities.
The US Federal government does not define -- nor prosecute nor punish acts of homicide -- in general. Each State makes its own gradiations between "justifiable homicide" at the one extreme and murder at the other; and there is no reason to expect nor guarantee that any two States will draw the line in just the same place.
This is why we have one State legally allowing for "euthanasia" -- which *is* murder -- and others winking at it.
Furthermore, the issue is not "whether the fetus has an overriding right to life or not" -- that is already settled: if "the fetus" is a person, then it may not be killed for the benefit of another.
The question is: is "the fetus" a person? The answer is: yes -- and this is why "liberals" and other pro-abortionists put so much effort into muddying the issue: pretending we don't know "when life begins," pretending that that even matters in this context; pretending that it's a tough call as to whether "the fetus" is a person ... which then leads to the pretense that its a tough call as to when any person is a person.
It's precisely because of the 14th amendment that "liberals" and other pro-abortionists put so much effort into obfuscation about "the futus'" status as a person.
So if Massachusetts passed a law legalizing infanticide up to the age of two that would be constitutional?
Victor: Ilion's character, ofuscaton, is making no sense. Why bother trying to reason with it?
VR: "So if Massachusetts passed a law legalizing infanticide up to the age of two that would be constitutional?"
Obviously; is it not already constitutional in Oregon to "help" the "terminally ill" -- who apparently have somehow lost their status as persons -- to off themselves? For their own good, of course.
Obviously; was it not constitutional to actively cause the death of Terri Schiavo -- who apparently somehow lost her status as a person? For her own good, of course.
Obviously; is it not already "constitutional" to murder the unborn before they are born ... and even after they are born if the abortion fails to take? Does not your newest hero, whom I understand claims to be a constitutional lawyer, champion killing the little bastards on the second go-round?
Obviously; has not the US Supreme Court already decreed that the unborn are not legal persons, do not possess the fundamental right to life? Extending that non-personhood isn't difficult ... and the process of doing so is already well in motion.
And after all, if we can pretend that it is a difficult and irresolvable question whether the unborn are persons -- and therefore it is legal and even moral to procede as though we know they are not -- then extending that difficulty is no difficulty at all.
=============
You appear to be confusing 'legal' with 'moral' ... a common mistake of "liberals." But, as our legal regime is no longer based upon judging our laws against God's law, any seeming correspondence between 'legal' and 'moral' is quite accidental.
Look, you're an intelligent and educated man, far more educated than I. Surely you ought to know that your appeal to personal incredulity above has no actual merit.
It's terribly amusing, is it not, that someone who refuses to reason imagines himself to be in a position to claim that someone else makes no sense?
Ilion: Will you ever outgrow this childish/"liberal" Civics 101 misconception of what the US Constitution is? The US Constitution is not about defining nor protecting our rights, it is about defining and limiting the scope of *Federal* authorities.
The 14th Amendment: "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."
Didn't someone accuse *me* of ofuscaton [sic]?
That wasn't me. All I just did was accuse you of making a statement about the nature of the Constitution which is in direct contradiction to the wording of what is now a part of the Constitution, the 14th amendment.
I'm very aware of what you're doing. It's frequently called "playing word games."
Are you aware of the 9th and 10th amendments? Are you aware of the arguments against even having a "Bill of Rights," in the first place (and this argument being a primary reason for the 8th and 10th)?
Have you ever tried to read the Constitution? ... All that blah, blah, blah detailing what authorities the various offices and branches of the Federal government are to have? All that *limitation* on what the Feds may do?
ilion
The bill of rights was all about restricting the federal governement. However that is definitely not true of the 14th amendment.
I think the problem with Dr. Repperts idea with respect to the fetus is that its not "the state" that has abortions. The problem with saying its the mothers right is that they can deprive them of liberty if they violate an abortion law. So long as they give her a proper trial etc. A state can deprive someone of life and liberty so long as there is due process of law.
Post a Comment