Replies

Very interesting discussion here. I'll present a scenario and ask everyone on this thread to post comments -- particularly those who think abortion ought to be a state matter.

Suppose a state were to pass a law under which different classes of people were "protected" to different degrees in the state's statutes dealing with theft and robbery. For example . . . someone who stole a car from a white person would face 5 years in prison, someone who stole a car from an Asian would face up to 3 years, a car theft involving a black victim would get the culprit 1-2 years, etc.

Does anyone here think this would -- or SHOULD -- pass Constitutional muster?

I would make a case that this kind of law would never meet standards under the U.S. Constitution. Once it is determined that a "person" is involved, then it would seem that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment would clearly make this law unconstitutional.

Someone correctly pointed out that different states have different definitions of "murder" when it comes to defining murder, manslaughter, legitimate acts of self-defense, etc. But these clearly involve different criminal laws based on the activity in question, not different laws based on the people in question.

Is there a way to trip up the pro-abortion crowd with a definition of "personhood" that would force them to see the unborn as people? I wonder if that is not the way to go.

The way it stands now, a fetus is a person legally IF IT WAS WANTED by the woman carrying it. And it is NOT a person if it was not wanted. This is proven by the case of Connor Peterson, RIP, and the fact that people still obtain 2nd trimester abortions any day of the week.

We need a definition of person that stands up. Under their definition, most of the homeless do not constitute persons. No one is saying we should put them to death because they aren't "wanted" by anyone.

Does anyone here think this would -- or SHOULD -- pass Constitutional muster?

There is an equal protection argument there - however, that argument has seldom been used by SCOTUS (and wrongly used, IMO, in Bush v. Gore.

I see what you are saying - but IMO if abortion was returned to the states, we can win the battle there for good except for a couple of states such as NY and Massachussets, as well as striking a blow for federalism, which would also help to reduce the fedgov.

Trying to simply reverse the role of federal usurped power leaves that weapon available for liberals should they re-gain control of SCOTUS at a later date.