Posted on 08/05/2002 5:30:51 PM PDT by jwalsh07
AMENDMENT 14
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Why not?
Good night.
And that fetus has unique DNA. Different from it's mother. It is NOT the mother's tissue any longer.
It is an individual.
He cares only that we see it as a miracle, a gift.
Care to expound on that?
No! Given the question, it's grammatically correct. There is no judgement in the statment.
(Honestly, I've seen pictures of simian fetuses that look an awful lot like the one in the article, so who knows?)
Hank
Nothing belongs to anyone who cannot be responsible for it. If a life depends on me, it is mine, just as my life depends on God, so it is His. You may not agree with this principle, but it is the truth.
Hank
Personally, almost anything can be "proved" by scientists today, that's why so many people are taken in by quacks.
Hank
OK, you got possibilities, I'll put you down as a maybe. You sure you're not a politician? :-}
Let me understand this clearly now:
That must be some god you worship.
Just want others to read what you just said, as imo, THAT's IT!!! It's ALL in the DNA!!!!!! Very smart of you!!! And God bless you!!!!!!
...........Is this baby a person?... At the INSTANT the baby's DNA becomes different than the mothers', it is an unique individual and should be afforded equal protection under the law. I don't understand why pro-life groups/attorneys don't persue the DNA angle instead of the "moment of life" one. I don't believe we will EVER determine the point at which a baby becomed "alive". DNA determination is completely scientific and not at the whim of different beliefs and religions.
The word "rights" is very bad, but, if we must use it, there can only be a right to do, not a right to have, because a right to have implies someone else is obligated to provide whatever it is one has a right to have.
No "right" can require the violation of a "right." If there is a right to life, it means one has a right to live their life as best they can without the forceful interference of any other individual. The moment you prevent one human being from living as they choose by force, you deny the right to life.
If you claim anyone has a right to force someone else to provide for their life, you have denied the right of life, particularly to the one you will force to provide for another. If the right to life is denied, there is not grounds for saying a baby has a right to life.
Hank
A broad intepretation of the ammendment would mean that the Federal government has an obligation RIGHT NOW to shut down the abortion mills.
All pro-aborts on this thread who are arguing against your interpretation of the ammendment are arguing that it should be interpreted NARROWLY, not broadly. The answer to that is that if we are to interpret the Constitution narrowly then Roe v. Wade should be overturned, for it constructed a VERY elaborate interpretation.
They can't have it both ways. Either the Feds have an obligation to protect the right of the unborn (broad interpretation of the Constitution) or Roe v. Wade should be overturned (narrow interpretation). Take your pick..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.