Murder of person A by person B is not a civil rights violation, unless person B is acting under color of authority.
you are arguing that people are not constitutionally forbidden to kill other innocent people unless the killers are under "color of authority"?
that's a bizarre argument, and even if it were true, then judges ("under color of authority") could not rule in favor abortion.
The 14th Amendment forbids the government from murdering you.
the 5th and 14th amendments enumerate my right to life--a right that cannot be abridged by, say, leftist judges who would support a democrat's "right to choose" to kill "republicans". no one "under color of authority" can legitimate (by judicial fiat, legislation, etc.) the death of innocent people. You've already agreed to this principle.
The problem is that you are inconsistent in your application, and you continually commit the fallacy of the false-disjunct.
The courts can no longer "allow" the murder of innocent unborn persons than they can "allow" the murder of innocent already born persons. Such a ruling of allowance would violate the 14th amendment under their "color of authority".
tame: So then any person CAN be deprived of life, liberty or due property without due process of law???
pooh:Not by the state.
but it would be okay, (i.e., legally permissable) for any joe to do it?
No, it wouldn't because the state OR feds cannot rule or legislate to ALLOW any joe to do so. See how it works? Same with abortion.
Consider this: a burglar breaks into my house. I shoot him. I have denied him due process of law, as I have denied him his right to life and did not grant him "substantial due process."
False analogy. an exception (which the framers of the said amendments most certainly distinguished in their original meaning) is not a rule. self defense is not contrary to the principles found in the amendments. self defense is consistent with them.
assumes the said rights of innocent persons have not been forfeited. That's not rocket science.
Your analogy "proves" much more than i'm sure you want it to. for instance, your analogy would not allow you to go out and kill anyone just because you felt like it. this is true, in part, because of the 5th and 14th amendments. in like manner, a pregnant woman and her doctor are not allowed to kill an innocent unborn child for the same reasons.
Kindly note that the state is not actually aborting babies.
By YOUR reasoning it most certainly IS. Please note that PEOPLE kill other people. Also, these people cano only carry out this murder without legal consequence if the STATE allows them to. But the state cannot allow them to because of the 5th and 14th amendments. So we're right back to the main point. the 5th and 14th amendments prohibit killing unborn children.
Good grief. You've just taken a hugely expansive interpretation of the Constitution.
Quite the contrary. my position is consistent WITH the principles of the constitution. YOUR position is the one that is expansive, even to the point of allowing the death of innocent children.
The only crime specified in the Constitution of the United States is treason. Everything else is left to the states.
The courts can no longer "allow" the murder of innocent unborn persons than they can "allow" the murder of innocent already born persons.
The unborn are explicitly OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment. That's a defect of the wording. You will need to correct that defect.
but it would be okay, (i.e., legally permissable) for any joe to do it?
That would be a matter for the state to adjudicate under its laws.
False analogy. an exception (which the framers of the said amendments most certainly distinguished in their original meaning) is not a rule. self defense is not contrary to the principles found in the amendments. self defense is consistent with them.
But there is imposed, by judicial fiat, a requirement for "substantive due process" before I deprive that person of his life.
Quite the contrary. my position is consistent WITH the principles of the constitution. YOUR position is the one that is expansive, even to the point of allowing the death of innocent children.
Once again, due to a defect of language in the 14th Amendment, the unborn are explicitly outside the protections granted by the Constitution. You're going to have to rewrite that amendment. Doing it by judicial fiat is not an option.