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

To: Psalm 73
Claiming “states rights” on abortion is like claiming “states rights” on slavery.

America was "state's rights on slavery" until we passed a constitutional amendment which clarified the issue.

Likewise, we can't overturn the states' right to regulate abortion without a constitutional amendment, which I totally support. Existing law does not sufficiently establish life as being present prior to birth.

9 posted on 12/16/2011 10:19:30 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Liberalism: Ideas so good, they have to be mandatory!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Notary Sojac

Actually, look at my post #10. If Roe v Wade is correct and the 14th Amendment only applies to *legal* persons, then none of the Constitution applies to either fetuses or Blacks. So while it is illegal to have a *legal* person be subject to “involuntary servitude”, no Blacks are considered *legal* persons so the prohibition on slavery doesn’t include Blacks as slaves.

IOW, if Roe v Wade is correct (or binding, even), then any state in this country can allow Black slavery. Just like they can allow the killing of pre-born children. Or the killing of any other biological person who is not explicitly acknowledged in the Constitution as being a “legal person”. Who’s next? Women? Jews? Handicapped people? Dissenters? If Roe v Wade is binding, then any of those groups could be defined out of *legal* personhood by any state in the country.


11 posted on 12/16/2011 10:34:45 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Notary Sojac
"Existing law does not sufficiently establish life as being present prior to birth."

But it cannot be up to the "law" to determine when life begins - that would be just as much basic biology as the human status of blacks.
THAT was the problem back then, and it's certainly part of the problem now - some things are true no matter what the law or the Supreme Court says.

If the majority enacted a law that stated "Notary Sojac" is not human and thus is not entitled to any rights, it wouldn't mean squat because it defiies logic and truth (like legalized abortion or slavery).

13 posted on 12/16/2011 10:36:47 AM PST by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Notary Sojac

What you’re missing is the concept of God given, unalienable rights.

The right to freedom - this is a God given, unalienable right. Every person on the PLANET has this right, and always has.

The fact that state governments didn’t reconize this existing, individual right doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. States actually never had the authority to legalize slavery, because they never had the authority to seperate a black person from their unalienable right to freedom. They may have done it, but they never had the RIGHT to do it.

The right to life - another God given, unalienable right. Every person on the planet has this right NOW, because it is granted by God, not by governments. States may legalize abortion now, but they don’t have the RIGHT to legalize it, because they don’t have the right to separate a person from a God given, unalienable right—the right to life.

God given, unalienable rights apply to governments at every level. No government below the level of God has the authority to enact a law that violates an individual’s unalienable rights.


27 posted on 12/16/2011 12:14:41 PM PST by Brookhaven (Mitt Romney has been consistent since he changed his mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | 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