Abortion

[bewitched]

Incidentally, roughly half of the children killed by their mothers for reasons that amount to no more than convenience are male.

huh?
are you saying that aborted zygotes are 50% male?
and that means... that the sex can be determined at 6-8 weeks? or that since you are a male you have some right over the decisions that a woman makes about her body?

 

[bewitched]

Which part of this gives a woman the right to kill her child without legal consequence for any or no reason?
.

again. a woman is not killing a child.
an abortion is a simple procedure, much like having a miscarriage. lots of blood and the body no longer has that particular lining of the uterus.

 

[9sublime]

ummm, yes, abortion is legal so I can do what I want with my uterus. thanks.

I think the whole idea of this debate is to discuss wether or not it should be legal - just because its law doesn't make it necessarily right.

 

[bewitched]

I think the whole idea of this debate is to discuss wether or not it should be legal - just because its law doesn't make it necessarily right.

ummm, legal is right. sorry, that's how it goes.
do you mean that you think abortion is immoral?
too bad for you. many others don't. abortion has been around for centuries and will always happen. it's a hard choice to make but better to have the choice of abortion rather than some of the others.

 

[palerider]

ummm, yes, abortion is legal so I can do what I want with my uterus. thanks.

Lots of things were legal at one time. Slavery for example. Turning women away from the polls is another than comes to mind. In case you haven't noticed, the face of the court has changed considerably in the past 8 years.

It is my bet that not so very long from now, my grandkids (already born by the way) will look back on you, and those like you with the same disgust that you and those like you look back on the old slavers.

 

[palerider]

huh?
are you saying that aborted zygotes are 50% male?
and that means... that the sex can be determined at 6-8 weeks? or that since you are a male you have some right over the decisions that a woman makes about her body?

The sex of the child can be determined as soon as fertilization is complete. And once again, I could care less about what you do to your own body. Tear it limb from limb if you like. My concern lies with the children who are being torn apart and killed for reasons that rarely amount to more than convenience.

 

[palerider]

again. a woman is not killing a child.
an abortion is a simple procedure, much like having a miscarriage. lots of blood and the body no longer has that particular lining of the uterus.

Is that what you tell yourself to assuage your own guilt? The fact is that it is a human being from the time fertilization is complete. It is as human as it will ever be. You are exactly the same individual today that you were as a zygote when you came into being. The only difference is that today you are more mature.

And most murders involve lots of blood. It wasn't your blood though. Check the type. In a large number of abortions all that blood is of a different type than that of the mother because very often the child has a different blood type. The amount of blood that mom loses is very small indeed.

The things pro choicers tell themselves in order to be able to look themselves in the mirror and to sleep at night is strangely fascinating and nauseating at the same time.

 

[palerider]

I think the whole idea of this debate is to discuss wether or not it should be legal - just because its law doesn't make it necessarily right.

On that note, we agree completely. Slavery was legal but very few today would say that it was right. And it was perfectly legal at one time to tell women that they may not enter a polling place, but it certainly wasn't right. Abortion is going to go the same way and in not so very long it will be tough to find anyone who will admit to ever having supported such a sick and barbaric practice as killing one's child because it is less than convenient.

 

[palerider]

too bad for you. many others don't. abortion has been around for centuries and will always happen. it's a hard choice to make but better to have the choice of abortion rather than some of the others.

So has murder, and manslaughter. Those practices have been made illegal, however, and we now have a means to punish those anti social types who believe that killing another human being is any sort of answer to their own problems.

 

[numinus]

We keep coming full circle because you keep failing to effectively dismantle any part of my argument. There is no need to change it so long as you are unable to effectively rebutt it.

And YOUR argument will continue in its unmistakable spiral unless you give a CLEAR STANDARD FOR PERSONHOOD -- which is what I have been asking since the start.

Obviously, your legal dictionary isn't that clear standard, nor the arbitrary classification of taxonomy.

Here is the applicable text of the 14th amendment. Show me where it extends personhood to anyone.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of 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.

Are you daft?

'All persons BORN or naturalized in the united states etc. etc.'

Hence the need to prove personhood to the UNBORN. I really don't know the purpose of this line of reasoning when, by your admission, justice blacknum has already set the criteria by which personhood is extended to the point of conception - a clear legal precedent within the meaning of the 14th ammendment.

You don't grasp a difference between interpreting the law and unilatarially redfining words?

Did the 14th ammendment define the word person that would have you believe that there is a RE-definition of this word???

Neither the constitution nor natural law defined the word person. They assume it to be INTUITIVE OR SELF-EVIDENT.

Is there a time, from conception on, when the unborn is not a human being?

But there is a time when a human being IS NOT A PERSON -- within the contemplation of the law. From your own admission, comatose individuals aren't persons.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Which part of this gives a woman the right to kill her child without legal consequence for any or no reason?

'...to be secure in their persons,...' would include the unborn if such an entity is not a person. Do we really need to rehash this line of reasoning. It is clear from the majority decision, is it not?

Hell, for that matter, show me the word "privacy" anywhere within the constitution. It is a right made up of whole cloth by the court.

Privacy is a LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE of the 14th ammendment. Everyone knows that. In fact, there are countless precedents for this.

 

[palerider]

And YOUR argument will continue in its unmistakable spiral unless you give a CLEAR STANDARD FOR PERSONHOOD -- which is what I have been asking since the start.

And I have given it. The fact that you don't like it is irrelavent.

Are you daft?

'All persons BORN or naturalized in the united states etc. etc.'

Now this is a change. Are you saying that you really don't understand the 14th amendment? If the above was a serious statment, then it is more than obvious that you not only don't know the history behind the 14th amendment and the purpose for which it was written, but you don't know what it means either. You have based your argument on a faulty understanding of the 14th amendment and as such that fault has magnified itself throughout your entire position. I have already gone through this in detail for topgun so if you don't mind, I will simply bring the explanation of the 14th amendment that I gave him here.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of 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.

You may or may not have noticed that the amendment is written in two sentences. There is a reason for that.

At the time the amendment was added, states were in charge of citizenship, not the federal government and as such, people were first and foremost, a citizen of their particular state and second a citizen of the US. There were several states that were denying their citizens ther basic human rights on this basis. The first sentence in dark red) establishes that we are first and foremost citizens of the US and secondarily citizens of our state and since we are primarily citizens of the US, our rights are protected by the constitution.

Clearly the first sentence (written in dark red) states that only persons born or naturalized are citizens but one doesn't have to be a citizen in order to enjoy the protections of the 14th amendment as I will explain.

The second sentence is written in three clauses. There is a reason for this.The first clause (written in blue) is to enhance and punctuate the first sentence. It states clearly that no state law can override the rights protected by the constitution.

Did you notice that the clauses are separated with semicolons ( instead of commas (,)? Do you recognize the signifigance of semicolons vs commas. Maybe I better explain that to you as well since it is clear that you haven't seriously considered the language or punctuation used in the Constitution. One must understand the punctuation used in order to grasp what the writers are saying. A semicolon used to indicate a major division in a sentence where a more distinct separation is felt between clauses or items on a list than is indicated by a comma, as between the two clauses of a compound sentence.

The second clause (written in red) states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This clause states that no person shal be deprived of life, liberty, property without due process, not "no citizen". The first clause points out and states that citizens have certain privledges and immunities attatched to their citizenship where as the second states that NO PERSON shall be deprived of life liberty or property.

This theory was first tested in the case of Yick Wo v Hopkins in 1876. The court clearly stated that "The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens."

There are numerous cases after this one that affirmed this fact. If you need to see them, I can look some of them up for you.

Finally, the third clause (written in purple). "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Tell me that you aren't aware of the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. This is it. It is why you can't kill, rape, beat, or steal from non citizens. Stated simply, one doesn't have to be a citizen of the US for one's right to live to be protected in the US or be born in the US in order to be considered a person under the constitution.

Hence the need to prove personhood to the UNBORN. I really don't know the purpose of this line of reasoning when, by your admission, justice blacknum has already set the criteria by which personhood is extended to the point of conception - a clear legal precedent within the meaning of the 14th ammendment.

You really don't understand what you are reading do you? I thought you might just be playing, but you really don't understand it. Justice Blackmun isn't saying that personhood is defined by the 14th amendment or that the 14th amendment says who is and who is not a person. Justice blackmun is saying that if a case is made for the personhood of the unborn, they will be entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment.

I am not sure where you got the idea that the 14th amendment in some way defines what is and what is not a person because it clearly doesn't. The 14th amendment only states what rights persons have. If you are unsure what a person is, refer to any legal dictionary to find a legal definition in the same manner as you would look up any other word you don't understand in a legal dictionary to get a legal definition.

Did the 14th ammendment define the word person that would have you believe that there is a RE-definition of this word???

The 14th amendment doesn't define anything. The 14th amendment only states that no person shall be denied certain rights without due process. Again, if you are unsure what a person is in the eyes of the law, refer to a legal dicitonary.

Neither the constitution nor natural law defined the word person. They assume it to be INTUITIVE OR SELF-EVIDENT.

Refer to the founding documents. They state that we are endowed by our creator (that is, we come into being) with certain inalienable rights and among those are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I can find nothing within the founding documents or the constitution that states that one is only a person when one has finished a "magical" 7 inch journey down a birth canal.

By the way, according to your reasoning, those delivered by cesarean section would also not be persons as they were never born. The word born has a specific meaning as it refers to one's birth and the word birth is quite specific as well.

But there is a time when a human being IS NOT A PERSON -- within the contemplation of the law. From your own admission, comatose individuals aren't persons.

I have never said any such thing. One more example of you misrepresenting my position in order to build a strawman which you can appear to knock down. A person who is so badly injured or so sick that they can not reasonably be expected to recover is still a person. We can't attack them bodily and kill them. We can stop treatment and let nature take its course. If they die, then they die but if they continue to live, we still can't bodily attack and kill them. You don't cease to be a person when you are too sick or injured to be expected to recover.

'...to be secure in their persons,...' would include the unborn if such an entity is not a person. Do we really need to rehash this line of reasoning. It is clear from the majority decision, is it not?

To be secure in their persons from what? The amendment clearly states that they shall be secure in their persons from unreasonable search and siezure without a warrant. There is no inferred, or implied right to privacy that would allow one to kill another human being without legal consequence. A right to privacy is made up. No such right exists.

Privacy is a LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE of the 14th ammendment. Everyone knows that. In fact, there are countless precedents for this.

Actually, there are not. There are a handful that stem from Griswold v. Connecticut which was the basis for Roe v Wade. Griswold v Connecticut established that a woman could take birth control pills if she so chose and was protected by the 4th amendment as taking the pills is a private matter. The leap from being protected so that one can take birth control pills to being protected so that one can deliberately kill another human being is not to be found within the either Griswold v Connecticut or the Constitution itself.

By the way, one doesn't have to get very far from matters of sex and reproduction in order to see one's Constitutional "right" to privacy begin to dissappear. This is a clear indication that the right to privacy with regard to sex and reproducton are fabrications of the court to justify thier unconstitutional decision.

 

[numinus]

And I have given it. The fact that you don't like it is irrelavent.

Now this is a change. Are you saying that you really don't understand the 14th amendment? If the above was a serious statment, then it is more than obvious that you not only don't know the history behind the 14th amendment and the purpose for which it was written, but you don't know what it means either. You have based your argument on a faulty understanding of the 14th amendment and as such that fault has magnified itself throughout your entire position. I have already gone through this in detail for topgun so if you don't mind, I will simply bring the explanation of the 14th amendment that I gave him here.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of 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.

You may or may not have noticed that the amendment is written in two sentences. There is a reason for that.

At the time the amendment was added, states were in charge of citizenship, not the federal government and as such, people were first and foremost, a citizen of their particular state and second a citizen of the US. There were several states that were denying their citizens ther basic human rights on this basis. The first sentence in dark red) establishes that we are first and foremost citizens of the US and secondarily citizens of our state and since we are primarily citizens of the US, our rights are protected by the constitution.

Clearly the first sentence (written in dark red) states that only persons born or naturalized are citizens but one doesn't have to be a citizen in order to enjoy the protections of the 14th amendment as I will explain.

The second sentence is written in three clauses. There is a reason for this.The first clause (written in blue) is to enhance and punctuate the first sentence. It states clearly that no state law can override the rights protected by the constitution.

Did you notice that the clauses are separated with semicolons ( instead of commas (,)? Do you recognize the signifigance of semicolons vs commas. Maybe I better explain that to you as well since it is clear that you haven't seriously considered the language or punctuation used in the Constitution. One must understand the punctuation used in order to grasp what the writers are saying. A semicolon used to indicate a major division in a sentence where a more distinct separation is felt between clauses or items on a list than is indicated by a comma, as between the two clauses of a compound sentence.

The second clause (written in red) states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This clause states that no person shal be deprived of life, liberty, property without due process, not "no citizen". The first clause points out and states that citizens have certain privledges and immunities attatched to their citizenship where as the second states that NO PERSON shall be deprived of life liberty or property.

This theory was first tested in the case of Yick Wo v Hopkins in 1876. The court clearly stated that "The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens."

There are numerous cases after this one that affirmed this fact. If you need to see them, I can look some of them up for you.

Finally, the third clause (written in purple). "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Tell me that you aren't aware of the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. This is it. It is why you can't kill, rape, beat, or steal from non citizens. Stated simply, one doesn't have to be a citizen of the US for one's right to live to be protected in the US or be born in the US in order to be considered a person under the constitution.

What arrogant nonsense!

This ammendment derives its meaning from the john locke's second treatise.

The SOCIAL CONTRACT binds all people, citizens and foreigners (passers through) within the territorial boundaries of the polity. It applies to the children of both citizens and foreigners by the MERE ENJOYMENT of fruits of polity. Finally, like all contracts, its fundamental validity derives from CONSENT -- given either FREELY OR TACITLY.

From this alone, the existence of slaves -- human beings who are NOT in posssesion of their most FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTIES OF LIFE AND LIBERTY -- have no place in polity.

The ideas promulgated by the consititution directly comes from the political philosophy that gives it FORM AND SUBSTANCE. Consent is the basic requirement of the social contract. And even in the broadest sense, consent may not be logically inferred in the unborn.

The fact remains, neither the constitution, nor its jurisprudence, nor the political philosophy that serves as its foundation, nor natural law, has EVER contemplated the inclusion of the unborn within the realm of polity.

So, you may take your tiny punctuations and speculate as to their differences in meaning all you wish. Expounding on punctuations will NOT prove your proposition, so you might as well start proving in earnest.

You really don't understand what you are reading do you? I thought you might just be playing, but you really don't understand it. Justice Blackmun isn't saying that personhood is defined by the 14th amendment or that the 14th amendment says who is and who is not a person. Justice blackmun is saying that if a case is made for the personhood of the unborn, they will be entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment.

I am not sure where you got the idea that the 14th amendment in some way defines what is and what is not a person because it clearly doesn't. The 14th amendment only states what rights persons have. If you are unsure what a person is, refer to any legal dictionary to find a legal definition in the same manner as you would look up any other word you don't understand in a legal dictionary to get a legal definition.


The 14th amendment doesn't define anything. The 14th amendment only states that no person shall be denied certain rights without due process. Again, if you are unsure what a person is in the eyes of the law, refer to a legal dicitonary.

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I'm not sure where exactly your dishonesty comes from, but here it is -- YET AGAIN. I await your dissertation on the meaning of punctuations that would somehow make what you are saying conform with the opinion of justice blacknum.

 

[numinus]

Refer to the founding documents. They state that we are endowed by our creator (that is, we come into being) with certain inalienable rights and among those are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I can find nothing within the founding documents or the constitution that states that one is only a person when one has finished a "magical" 7 inch journey down a birth canal.

The founding documents (the declaration of independence and the constitution itself) are FACSIMILES of john locke's social contract theory. These founding documents are entirely meaningless without its philosophical basis. Without philosophy, one merely asks 'why?' to any of the founding documents' assertions and it would quickly fall into disarray.

Your insistence on your legal dictionary, as opposed to the clear and logical assertions of philosophy indicates the extent of your dishonesty.

By the way, according to your reasoning, those delivered by cesarean section would also not be persons as they were never born. The word born has a specific meaning as it refers to one's birth and the word birth is quite specific as well.

LOL.

I have two 'unborn children' then, ages 10 and 5?

I shiver in anticipation as to what your legal dictionary says about that?

I have never said any such thing. One more example of you misrepresenting my position in order to build a strawman which you can appear to knock down. A person who is so badly injured or so sick that they can not reasonably be expected to recover is still a person. We can't attack them bodily and kill them. We can stop treatment and let nature take its course. If they die, then they die but if they continue to live, we still can't bodily attack and kill them. You don't cease to be a person when you are too sick or injured to be expected to recover.

What blatant sophistry! I wonder if the punctuations in that post hold some unseen and mysterious meaning???

Neither the hippocratic oath, nor the entire ethical standard of the medical profession distinguishes between ACTS OF COMMISSION AND ACTS OF OMMISSION in the performance of its supreme imperative.

The only thing relevant here is the RELATIONSHIP between an ACTION (OR NON-ACTION) and its LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE.

Clearly, your idea of personhood is dependent upon the circumstance a human being finds himself in. A particular stage of fetal development is as much 'circumstance' as any illness. Your idea of personhood is as shallow as your argument.

To be secure in their persons from what? The amendment clearly states that they shall be secure in their persons from unreasonable search and siezure without a warrant.

I am not at all surprised that you cannot discern meaning beyond the words and punctuations written in a legal dictionary.

There is no inferred, or implied right to privacy that would allow one to kill another human being without legal consequence. A right to privacy is made up. No such right exists.

What ignorant nonsense!

Again, from the majority decision:

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent."

Actually, there are not. There are a handful that stem from Griswold v. Connecticut which was the basis for Roe v Wade. Griswold v Connecticut established that a woman could take birth control pills if she so chose and was protected by the 4th amendment as taking the pills is a private matter. The leap from being protected so that one can take birth control pills to being protected so that one can deliberately kill another human being is not to be found within the either Griswold v Connecticut or the Constitution itself.

By the way, one doesn't have to get very far from matters of sex and reproduction in order to see one's Constitutional "right" to privacy begin to dissappear. This is a clear indication that the right to privacy with regard to sex and reproducton are fabrications of the court to justify thier unconstitutional decision.

From the same source:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 [p153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

More dishonesty form you.

 

[palerider]

What arrogant nonsense!

Sorry, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. The 14th amendment neither describes, nor defines what is a person. It states that persons born here are citizens and describes the difference between citizens and non citizens then the language changes from citizens to persons who are human beings but not citizens.

So, you may take your tiny punctuations and speculate as to their differences in meaning all you wish. Expounding on punctuations will NOT prove your proposition, so you might as well start proving in earnest.

The words prove my point. Sorry you have thus far been able to understand them. Let me attempt to help you one more time.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Clearly, this sentence describes who is a citizen of the US and that they are firstly a citizen of the US and secondarily a citizen of the state in which they reside as evidenced by the state coming second to the US in the sentence. Legal writing is what it is. Had the writers put the state first within the sentence and then the US, they would have been saying that we are primarily citizens of our state and secondarily citizens of the US.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

This clause reinforces and states explicitly the meaning of the first sentence. That is, we are primarily citizens of the US and secondarily citizens of the state we reside in and no state law can deny you the rights that you have as a citizen of the US.

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.


Note that we are no longer talking about citizens here and there is a specific reason for that. This is known as the equal protection clause and as I pointed out, it has been tested and proven to mean that one need not be a citizen in the US in order to expect that one will get due process before one is denied the right to life, liberty, or property.

I'm not sure where exactly your dishonesty comes from, but here it is -- YET AGAIN. I await your dissertation on the meaning of punctuations that would somehow make what you are saying conform with the opinion of justice blacknum.

I am still waiting for you to point out where the 14th amendment describes what is a person and who is and who is not a person. The fact that you are relying on the majority decision of roe but are unable to find anything within the constitution that says what they suggest should be sinking in by now. Could it be that you are learning that the roe decision was bogus and not founded on anything that can be found in the constitution?

 

[palerider]

I have two 'unborn children' then, ages 10 and 5?

I shiver in anticipation as to what your legal dictionary says about that?

If they are human beings, my legal dictionary, and every one that I have been able to find says that they are persons. Is it correct?

Clearly, your idea of personhood is dependent upon the circumstance a human being finds himself in. A particular stage of fetal development is as much 'circumstance' as any illness. Your idea of personhood is as shallow as your argument.

And yet, euthanasia is not legal here because we can not bodily attack and kill a human being unless he or she has had due process. We can let a person die, but we can not kill them. There is a difference. If there were not, euthanasia would be acceptable.

Again, from the majority decision:

No actual answer huh?

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent."

Still waiting for you to show me the word privacy in the constitution, much less a right to it, particularly in the 14th amendment. Any "right" to privacy is made up from whole cloth.