Which event?
please state your answer in the form of a question.
Please state your position more clearly, and please don't instruct me as to which literary device i should use to answer you.
It's a fundamental defect in common law has to be addressed in statutory law.
i think you mistated this sentence. Please reword it so i'll be sure what you're saying.
btw, do you believe that any statutory law that deprives citizens of their constitution, civil rights should be overturned?
It is the event that is the absolute prerequisite to being a "person" under common law.
If you can't readily name that event from the description above, you are arguing from a point of abject ignorance on this issue, and all your table-thumping about the 5th and 14th Amendments will do you no good.
Please state your position more clearly, and please don't instruct me as to which literary device i should use to answer you.
If you cannot handle a little sarcasm, then maybe you should grow a slightly thicker skin.
i think you mistated this sentence. Please reword it so i'll be sure what you're saying.
btw, do you believe that any statutory law that deprives citizens of their constitution, civil rights should be overturned?
I hate to tell you this, but you should not comment on others' writing lacking clarity when your own is so poor.
There is a fundamental defect in common law that affects all right-to-life cases. This defect must corrected in statutory law. It goes back to the event I asked you to name above.
Now, either you're an ignorant individual, or you know what I'm talking about and are hell-bent on dodging the issue.
Who died and made you Pope and Chief Justice?
Why do you assume that the people through their legislature are more apt to write insufferable and unconstitutional laws than activist judges who have nothing better to do than overturn the laws passed by the people's representatives?
And how would you know you have the right bead on what is and is not constitutional?
You seem to be confusing a refusal to criminalize a moral wrong (abortion) with a positive action to destrain a person from acting or enjoying a thing (penal/capital punishment and seizures).
Under the consitution, the state can refuse to punish an immoral act, such as prostitution. I wouldn't view such liberty as a good law, but the effect of a refusal to punishment is decriminalization. On the other hand, the constitution gives no authority for the state to force a woman into prostitution, which would be a deprivation without due process.
The state can prevent an action by criminalizing or allow an action by decriminalizing. It can only coerce an action through punishment, which is why we demand due process in such cases.
The problem with Roe vs. Wade is that it forcibly decriminalized a morally abhorent action in all cases that the people had outlawed.
Perhaps you should look at it in another way. Most states allow you to use deadly force against an intruder in your home. Some, however, out of a misidentified sympathy for crimnials, crimnialize self-defense. Allowing self-defense is not really different in consequence or law than allowing abortion. The effect is the termination of a human life withot a trial or action of the law by an extra-governmental agent.
What makes the difference is that most people view self-defense as a normal legal right, while most people view abortion as a sin.
Lets not confuse the powers of the state with the needs of the law.