Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EternalVigilance

You talk of a “Pre-Roe” timeframe but still live in it yourself. The law has already determined a fetus to not be a “person” therefore has no rights. This is not my personal belief however the “life,liberty,and pusuit of happiness” doesn’t apply to a “fetus.” So what were you saying about the abrogation of individuals or states?


28 posted on 06/17/2007 10:11:35 PM PDT by killermedic ("Est Sularus uth Mithas")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: killermedic
The law has already determined a fetus to not be a “person” therefore has no rights.

That's the silly notion propated by Roe.

First, if you claim that any State has the right to declare the non-personhood of the "fetus," which simply means "child," you are agreeing with Roe, and have removed any moral or intellectual argument against Roe.

Secondly, if you take such a position, you have also removed any justification for any individual State to outlaw abortion.

In short, you are advocating for the status quo, as is any politician who takes this immoral and nonsensical position.

32 posted on 06/17/2007 10:14:33 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ("You will have your bipartisanship." - Fred Thompson, May 4, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson