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

To: John Valentine
Most constitutional scholars would disagree vehemently with this statement.

Unthinking lemmings, perhaps.

Read Roe. Blackmun conceded that the decision falls apart if the unborn are protected by the Fourteenth--that is, if they are actually persons that require equal protection under the law.

The only opposition to abortion, in logic and law, is that the child has the right to life. If the child has no right to life, it is a valueless thing we should not concern ourselves with, and we should not interfere with the mother's choice in so personal a matter.

But if the unborn child does have the right to life, no state could sanction its killing any more than the murder of any other human being.

109 posted on 11/05/2007 12:54:02 AM PST by Gelato (... a liberal is a liberal is a liberal ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]


To: Gelato
I didn't say I disagreed with Blackmun. I only disagreed with YOU.

You said, in essence, that Blackmun's postulated scenario was the only "legitimate basis" for overturning Roe. That's just wrong. There is PLENTY wrong with Roe quite aside from this issue, and I will tell you this; if Roe is ever overturned it surely won't be on these 14th Amendment grounds.

112 posted on 11/05/2007 1:01:32 AM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | 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