Posted on 05/31/2017 9:21:02 PM PDT by boatbums
Maybe they’ll return during the hour of judgement
as 17 feet tall angels with 10 foot long flaming swords.
bttt
Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment was to overturn the Dred Scott decision where SCOTUS decided that Blacks are not legal persons even though they are biological persons.
The entire Roe v Wade decision was that the word “person” in the 14th Amendment meant “LEGAL (not merely biological) PERSON”.
But if that is really what was meant in the 14th Amendment then the 14th Amendment never applied to Blacks, who had already been determined by SCOTUS to be “human livestock” rather than “legal persons” (persons with Bill of Rights protections).
IOW, if Roe v Wade is correct and “person” in the 14th Amendment means “legal person”, then Blacks are STILL “human livestock” as decided in the Dred Scott case, because Dred Scott was never overturned. The 14th Amendment wouldn’t apply to Blacks, since Blacks have never been ruled to be LEGAL PERSONS who then qualify for 14th Amendment protections.
If the rationale of Roe v Wade was actually taken seriously, Blacks would still be legal non-persons. But everybody knows that Roe v Wade was just an excuse for SCOTUS to legislate from the bench. Nobody takes the rationale seriously because it is so deeply flawed.
And you can get some really tortured logic if you take Roe’s rationale seriously. For instance, involuntary servitude is banned. If that applies to Blacks, who are still classified legally as human livestock, then would it also apply to bovine livestock? Is bovine involuntary servitude forbidden in the US Constitution?
What if SCOTUS ruled that female humans are legal non-persons? Or Jews and the handicapped? Adolf Hitler didn’t exterminate a single person, you know, because he defined them all out of legal personhood before he exterminated them. What is to stop SCOTUS from doing the same thing, using the Roe decision as the precedent?
Roe v Wade is a terrible, terrible decision, on SO MANY different levels. It is the slavery beast and the Nazi beast all rolled into one. It is a travesty, and this nation is under its own curse as long as this ruling stands.
If a pregnant mother is killed, frequently the suspect is charged with murder of two people. How can that be?
Scott Peterson was charged with the murder of his unborn child and convicted.
That should have been brought as precedent to the Supreme Court.
I've always been unhappy with the concept of legal precedent because it seems to provide unlimited power to twist the original (sometime simple) case into knots solely for the purpose of winning a later case. I am strongly reminded of Talmudic scholarship, but that is a discussion for another day. We do not have a "justice" system in this country. We have a confrontational judicial system. Big difference.
It was explained to me on FR many years ago that the “right to privacy” invoked in the abortion argument originally has nothing to do with the aborting mother but rather the doctor who performed the abortion, because abortion was considered so reprehensible that knowledge of his activities would make him a pariah in his community.
No one references that nowadays.
Well, if refugees who seek to come here have U.S. Constitutional rights (according to the latest 4th Circuit decision) then certainly the unborn have the same right; even more so.
Exactly right.
Their underlying premise is might makes right ... a curious premise for women in particular to cling to.
So I guess Bork thought the preamble to the constitution does not count where it reserves these rights for all of us and our posterity?
Your comment made me think of a scene in the movie Saving Private Ryan. The Americans capture several German soldiers. As they are making the captives file at gunpoint past a line of American soldiers, a Jewish G.I. from New York lifts up the Star of David from the necklace he is wearing and waves it in the face of a passing German soldier, jeering more or less good-naturedly. It's a sin to gloat; but what a great scene.
Because "reproductive health" rights by its own nature demands the rights of the other already born human life and can have no place in the equation, or at least not to the point that it interferes with the purpose.
The only way Harvard could get there is for them to conclude an unborn baby is an illegal immigrant.
If they do the lawyer in the case needs to craft the question to the court carefully to give them little wiggle room.
The life of every human baby begins at their conception and merits full legal protection from that moment forward.
Abortion advocates know that life begins at conception but don’t care.
They cling to the premise that might makes right in instances when the law says that they’re the ones with the might.
Yep
Related article, here....
https://www.liveaction.org/news/landmark-harvard-essay-preborn-child-constitutional-person/
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.