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.
Read more carefully. All persons born in the US are citizens. A separate statement is that no law shall 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.
Even if you are not a citizen the state cannot deprive you of life or liberty.
In my opinion, yes.
"Is this baby a person?"
ABSOLUTELY.
So Webster's has the final say?
Well, it isn't a mere blob of disorganized, dead human tissue, so I venture that it is a live baby and has been since inception. What a concept! How could any sane person deny this to be true?
As Harry Blackmun, no friend to the unborn, said, and I paraphrase. 'If the unborn baby is a person, then the 14th Amendment right to life applies.'
Jer. 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;
By dehumanizing. It's a defense mechanism that prevents the bridges from being full of people waiting to jump.
Cool.
I can't imagine the spiritual darkness of those who deny this.
Is THIS denial the "litmus test" the Democrats and Arlen Specter demand the Supreme Court abides in?
LoL..
I get where you are coming from..."They are both the property of the woman"...therefore she can do what she wants with her property (the appendages that is).
I own two dogs, they are my property, I think I'll kill them.
WAIT...No one should be upset about this. They are my property after all. Killing them by crushing their skull is not cruel or disgusting or reprehensible in any way.They are my property...(according to Zon).
Actually, if you read carefully, that phrase is applied to persons, not citizens. The word "born" is part of the definition of a citizen, not a person.
Absolutely.
I've thought the very same thing. One should make a video of various abortion procedures being done on animals. It would make the liberals' heads explode.
Jeremiah 1
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [1] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
6 "Ah, Sovereign LORD ," I said, "I do not know how to speak; I am only a child."
7 But the LORD said to me, "Do not say, 'I am only a child.' You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you," declares the LORD .
so--would you consider "conjoined twins" to be an individual or two separate people? would you consider someone who is severely mentally handicapped a person?
Gee. Now I feel stupid. I didn't look at the date, OF COURSE, and I just replied. I proceeded to continue reading, and found I already posted to this thread, when I was pregnant with my 19 month old. I read the post, thought "Wow. That makes a lot of sense." and then did a double take when I realized I agreed with MYSELF!!!
Heehehehee
No, that is the definition of "citizen" that is predicated on born, that is a citizen is a born person. It does not mean that a person must be born to be a person.
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.