Now you are the one taking things out of context. The 14th provides no definition of "person", but does clarify citizenship and rights accorded thereunder. As for the USSC, they do not have the power to alter the constitution, and I specifically said that there is no adequate constitutional definition of a "person", which there isn't. Besides, the USSC is hardly a bastion of rational thought let alone constitutional though.
You have to insist that government enforce your beliefs, ~as law~, to become a constitutional scofflaw & zealot.. Do you?
The constitution puts restrictions on the federal govt and sometimes on state and local govts. As such, a citizen not in a place of govt authority cannot be a scofflaw. If you want scofflaws, write your senator or representative but you most likely won't find one here. As for being a zealot, I still think OJ is guilty of murder despite the fact he was acquitted - does that make me a zealot? I think the laws ought to be enforced according to their original intent, whether or not I agree with them. Do I believe abortion is murder? Philosophically, yes. Do I believe the US constitution supports this position - not adequately, but sure it can be argued. Does that make me a zealot? I don't think so.
Rational persons can arrive at reasonable regulations [like trial by jury] on moral dilemmas such as attempting to class early term abortion as murder. Zealots cannot. -- Choose your side.
If there is a point here, I missed it...
Not true.. -- The 14th specifies "All persons born".
The USSC decision included 'viabily', [being capable of living before actual birth] as a definition, -- and viablity increases every day, with advances in medical arts.
Now you are the one taking things out of context. The 14th provides no definition of "person", but does clarify citizenship and rights accorded thereunder.
"All persons born" are the first 3 words of the 14th, defining those whose rights are to be protected under our constitution.
As for the USSC, they do not have the power to alter the constitution,
'Alter' is not at issue. The USSC defines constitutional disputes.
and I specifically said that there is no adequate constitutional definition of a "person", which there isn't.
The facts belie you, as I explained above.
Besides, the USSC is hardly a bastion of rational thought let alone constitutional though.
So what? The words of the 14th are clear enough to decide the issue.
You have to insist that government enforce your beliefs, ~as law~, to become a constitutional scofflaw & zealot.. Do you?
The constitution puts restrictions on the federal govt and sometimes on state and local govts. As such, a citizen not in a place of govt authority cannot be a scofflaw.
Bull.. This position is ludicrous. You are a scofflaw if you do not support our constitutions laws.
If you want scofflaws, write your senator or representative but you most likely won't find one here. As for being a zealot, I still think OJ is guilty of murder despite the fact he was acquitted - does that make me a zealot? I think the laws ought to be enforced according to their original intent, whether or not I agree with them. Do I believe abortion is murder? Philosophically, yes. Do I believe the US constitution supports this position - not adequately, but sure it can be argued. Does that make me a zealot? I don't think so.
Rational persons can arrive at reasonable regulations [like trial by jury] on moral dilemmas such as attempting to class early term abortion as murder. Zealots cannot.
-- You seem to have chosen your side, in your rant above.
If there is a point here, I missed it...
Whatever. - I can't help you to learn to reason.