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

To: Vicomte13; jwalsh07
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Assuming fetuses are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitutional text (which is jwalsh07's contention, and one with which I disagree), cannot a reasonable contention be make that a law which legalizes the killing of fetuses but does not legalize the killing of other persons, is a denial of the equal protection of the laws?

78 posted on 01/20/2007 11:00:05 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: Torie

"Assuming fetuses are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitutional text (which is jwalsh07's contention, and one with which I disagree), cannot a reasonable contention be make that a law which legalizes the killing of fetuses but does not legalize the killing of other persons, is a denial of the equal protection of the laws?"

Of course!
Absolutely!
But my point is that what constitutes "person" within the meaning of the Constitutional text isn't defined by the Constitutional text. It's defined by the Courts and Congress and Executive agencies that operate under the Constitutional text.
The Constitution protects "persons".
What a "person" is, is defined by the Courts and Congress, and the Executive agencies.
Whatever they define a person as is then protected...insofar as the protection is understood to be granted by the Constitutional text by the Courts and agencies that enforce it and decide what "protection" means, and what limits it has.

I suppose an easier shortcut to all of this is to just say "Words mean what the Supreme Court say they mean".


80 posted on 01/21/2007 3:12:01 PM PST by Vicomte13 (Aure entuluva.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | 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