Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 13:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
An umbilical cord can not be a chain by which the mother involuntarily serves the child.
Again though, if the child is capable of independent life, the mother can not be allowed to kill it, born or unborn.
The umbilical cord is present, figuratively, until the age of majority. The mother and the father made their choice and it is their duty to serve and raise that child until that child reaches such an age as to be able to do that itself.
Again though, if the child is capable of independent life, the mother can not be allowed to kill it, born or unborn.
Independent life? Again, by this definiyion, states could allow open season until the age of 8. Do you really believ that? Babies have survived quite nicely arriving in this world after 21 weeks in the womb.
Why not? Why is it not a moral responsibility of the mother to bear the unborn child to term without deliberately harming it? all of us as adults end up with responsibilities that restrict our freedom of action. We get a job - we have to pay taxes. we get married - we have to support and stay faithful to our spouse. The result of sex can lead to such a responsibility. Just because we have the power to eg abuse kids, embezzle money, commit adultery, commit fraud, kill others, doesnt make it right!
Again though, if the child is capable of independent life, the mother can not be allowed to kill it, born or unborn.
Agreed, but the distinction on "independent life" is a false one imho. Just because others depend on you, it does NOT give you the right to harm them or kill them. If that were the case, we would let Andrea Yates walk for killing her dependents. Just because an unborn humen is tied via an umbilical cord, doesnt make the situation any different. This is a dependent and as such imposes a responsibility. You cannot escape certain responsibilities when other humans are involved. The simple answer - to deny the humanity of the unborn - is imho a specious argument made only for convenience. In fact, made to justify an immoral but convenient act.
Correct. According to Justice Scalia, "He dismissed the idea that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, but he also said the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit abortions, either. He indicated the issue ultimately should be decided by a constitutional amendment."
An umbilical cord can not be a chain by which the mother involuntarily serves the child.
Again though, if the child is capable of independent life, the mother can not be allowed to kill it, born or unborn.
What you are saying, in essence, is that a crime is committed only when the victim's life is independent from the aggressor's. Applying your logic, therefore, I would have total protection under the Constitution to kill the handicapped, the physically and mentally impaired, the old, the infirm, the comatose, and any other individual whose life depends on me. After all, "I'm being protected" by the Constitution as you indicate in your post #175, "not to be chain by which I involuntarily would serve some one else." Thus, I could purposeful kill by act or omission of a dependent human being for my alleged benefit --not to be a slave--
You forget that life starts at conception and that killing someone, because his/her life isn't independent from mine, violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency. The inevitable result of this trend would be to escalate from killing for my alleged benefit --not to be a slave-- to killing for the convenience of others. So we, the independent ones could improve the quality of our lives, not by mutually ennobling acts of care and assistance, but by exterminating those who fall below some arbitrary standard.