Posted on 07/08/2017 1:35:04 PM PDT by Kaslin
I once participated in a debate where I was asked to describe the constitutional rights afforded to the unborn. For me, the answer was easy because I've studied the Founders. For the other guy – who completely dodged the question – it was just another opportunity to spout some platform slogans about choice and women's rights.
Many people argue abortion based on what's fair, but our nation's laws are based not on the left's version of "fairness" any more than statutes (ought to) derive from government-mandated compassion. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution, and our Founding Fathers provide incontrovertible insight as to their understanding of the unalienable right to life.
The very first sentence of the Constitution declares that the document's central purpose includes the aim to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." As Glenn Beck notes, "[w]ho are our posterity, if not our unborn children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren?" To deny the Constitution's application to future generations is to erroneously deduce that the Founders intended their labor to last only a few years. Every constitutional provision that secures a human right was designed just as much for the protection of the rights of the unborn as for the rights of the born.
James Wilson, one of six men to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and a member of the first Supreme Court, lectured on constitutional law with Washington, Adams, and Jefferson in attendance – ostensibly endorsing his interpretations. As such, scholars typically concede that "Wilson, when speaking on the law, might be said to be speaking for the Founders generally."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Liberals think health care for the unborn (prenatal care) is a constitutional right but the unborn receiving the benefits has no rights.
The author infers that the unborn have the same rights as the born. They aren’t even citizens yet.
Your rights are not granted by constitutions, governments, or nations. They are God given, and existed long before nation states.
As soon as you exist, so do your rights. Some believe you exist at conception, others lie to themselves and believe you don't.
The concept is easy to understand Constitutionally,morally and ethically. It’s impossible to convince or have the left understand because they have been socially engineered and morally corrupted. With them,forget the original/textural Constitution,it only has value to them when it suits a selfish socialist agenda. killing comes natural to them and it’s quite shocking how they have not hit bottom yet.
Citizenship has nothing to do with the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.
Sure they are. And, when born, so-called Natural-Born to boot.
Why do you not consider them pre-born citizens? They need no naturalization upon birth (with the proper conditions). To view them not as citizens is to discriminate based on age (albeit, a negative "age").
Writing like this always makes me feel so stoooopid!
Some folks have the gift of an “economy of style”.
(a very groovy phrase, but not mine. Taken from Fricke’s description of Eric Clapton’s guitar playing).
Get the clear, meaning of things down in few words, with simple phrasing, proper assumptions and un-deniable conclusions.
Kudos to the author.
#MAGA
#Build the Wall
It is my understanding that Citizens possess both Fundamental God-given rights & Civil Government-given rights.
Life is a fundamental right; regardless, government or citizenry. The question as to when life begins was never addressed by SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade; SCOTUS instead punted and hid the abortion question under a privacy penumbra. I will agree that Citizenship begins at birth; however, that is not really an answer to a question regarding the fundamental right to life inherent an individual.
Excellent post.
Since Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, how many births were prevented or aborted? Certainly over 100 million. Thanks to scotus, American society isn’t replacing itself. Instead, third-worlders and muzzies fill the void.
No court decision can legitimately harm the societal foundation of our republic. If a newly discovered “right” from scotus harms society, it isn’t a right.
Why would a unborn child of two tourist be a citizen, simply because they are visiting America, and have no attachment here.
You have already conceded that simply being born to a American does not render one a citizen, one most meet conditions.
Every preborn baby, from conception forward, has a natural right to life.
Of course, I never stated otherwise.
Because the 14th Amendment is wrongly interpreted? Jurisdiction there of means more than visiting.... Anchor babies is the best most hideous determination the courts could have made.
Why not?
Because you said so?
bump for further reading
Every preborn baby, from conception forward, has a natural right to life.
50% on average of all embryos formed are aneuploid and won’t make it to baby. That is just the way life is.
Harvard University Medical School’s Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Principal Research Associate, stated, “In biology and in medicine, it is an accepted fact that the life of any individual organism, reproducing by sexual reproduction, begins at conception” (85; cf. 81:18; 72:149).
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, Jr. of the University of Colorado Medical School testified that “the beginning of a single human life is, from a biological point of view, a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals” (100:114).
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School noted: “The standard medical texts have long taught that human life begins at conception” (100:114).
He added: “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty . . . is not a human being. This is human life at every stage, albeit incomplete, until late adolescence” (100:114).
Dr. McCarthy De Mere, who is a practicing physician as well as a law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: “The exact moment of the beginning [of] personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception” (100:114).
World famous geneticist, Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Professor of Fundamental Genetics at the University of Descarte, Paris, France, declared: “. . . each individual has a very unique beginning, the moment of its conception” (85; cf. 81:18).
Dr. Lejeune also emphasized: “The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence” (85; cf. 72:149).
The chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, Professor Hymie Gordon, testified, “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception” (85; cf. 72:149).
He further emphasized: “. . . now we can say, unequivocally, that the question of when life begins. . . . is an established scientific fact. . . . it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception” (85; cf. 72:149; 81:18).
At that time the U.S. Senate proposed Senate Bill #158, called the “Human Life Bill.” These hearings which lasted 8 days, involving 57 witnesses, were conducted by Senator John East. This Senate report concluded:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings. (85:7)
In 1981, only one scientist disagreed with the majority’s conclusion, and he did so on philosophical and not scientific grounds. In fact, abortion advocates, although invited to so, failed to produce even one expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any other point than conception (100:113).*
* A few held that life may begin at implantation. However, implantation, while important, in no way defines life.
Many other biologists and scientists agree that life begins at conception. All agree that there is no point of time or interval of time between conception and birth when the unborn is anything but human.
Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., Ph.D., is one of the twentieth century’s titans in the field of embryology and reproductive science. He was the first scientist to consistently achieve in vitro fertilization of human eggs. This prominent scientist emphasizes, “The zygote is human life” (100:40).
G. L. Flanagan observes, “From their first hour the human cells are distinctly human” (71:12 in 90).
Dr. Margaret Liley and Beth Day state: “A human life begins with a single cell” (71:17 in 91).
Axel Ingelman-Sundberg and Claes Wirsen assert that, “It is a living being from the moment of conception” (71:17 in 92).
World famous geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky states: “A human begins his existence when a spermatozoon fertilizes an egg cell” (71:16 in 93).
Another leading scientist, Ashley Montagu, confesses, “Every human being starts off as a fertilized egg” (71:16 in 94).
Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia states, “At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote) a new [human] life has begun” (96:1087).
All of this evidence is why Professor Jerome Lejeune has stated: “If a fertilized egg is not by itself a full human being, it could never become a man, because something would have to be added to it, and we know that does not happen” (71:18). Biologically, no one can deny that we are human from conception.
In all stages of our growth, whatever the developing child is called, we are human. At birth humans are called babies. Inside the womb, humans are called “fetuses.” Before that, humans are called “embryos.” Before that, humans are planted on the uterine wall and called “blastocysts,” and before that, humans are called “zygotes.” Before that, only an individual sperm and egg existed, and not a human being.
Professor Roth of Harvard University Medical School has emphasized, “It is incorrect to say that the biological data cannot be decisive. . . . it is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when the egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and that this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life” (85; cf. 81:18; 72:149).
In conclusion, we agree with pioneer medical researcher, Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., Ph.D., that “. . . there is one fact that no one can deny: Human beings begin at conception” (24:16).
Again, let us stress that this is not a matter of religion, it is a matter of science. Scientists of every religious view and no religious view — agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, atheist, Christian, Hindu, etc. — all agree that life begins at conception. This explains why, for example, the International Code of Medical Ethics asserts: “A doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving human life from the time of conception until death” (101:317).
This is also why the Declaration of Geneva holds physicians to the following: “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity” (101:317). These statements can be found in the World Medical Association Bulletin for January, 1950 (Vol. 2, p. 5) and April 1949 (Vol. 1, p. 22). In 1970, the World Medical Association again reaffirmed the Declaration of Geneva (101:317).
What difference does it make that human life begins at conception? The difference is this: If human life begins at conception, then abortion is the killing of a human life.
To deny this fact is scientifically impossible.*
*But to accept this fact and maintain that taking human life is not morally wrong is incredible. It is even reminiscent of Nazi Germany and yet today such arguments are increasingly accepted (e.g. 136:16).
FROM: When Does Life Begin And 39 Other Tough Questions About Abortion – John Ankerberg and John Weldon 1989
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
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.