- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Yeah, I didn't think so, as you are fully aware, R v W is not the constitution, our Constitution says nothing like what you said it said... and this feeble dependence upon Roe v Wade, to this day an extremely controversial call by the Supreme Court that is just aching to be tossed, it being a terrible decision without real foundation in legislated law. This was a bad decision legislated from the bench, crafted from a patchwork of thin reasoning laid down in heavy fertilizer. Stinks then and it stinks now.
And as one has just proven none to particularly precise in how they "told the story" regarding the constitution and what it actually says, how about you provide this "proof" that abortion " throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn". As they just may say in Texas, sure sounds like a whole load of hooey.
Besides which, that very same amendment gave attention to another group of forgotten "persons" that up till about 1863 had not many rights at all... either. So these sentiments you propose for us all to just accept, yet still unproven, also ring just a little bit hollow.
Would just love to see that documentation. In R v W, the link you provided indicates that since 1854 Texas had a criminal statute prohibiting abortion... seems to inform as to another perspective than that to which you allude. Did Texas just pass that law because they did not want doctors to make money on a whole set of medical procedures and abortion, being amongst the alphabetically ordered located in the As, just happened to be selected, to be made illegal for no rational reason ... or maybe those old southern politicians just didn't cotten to the sound of a word such as abortion [ maybe sounded too much like abolition and you know those ol Texans can be, huh? ].... or was it because they were protecting these unborn children that you assert had absolutely no status...maybe the unborn were given a little more regard than you are crediting? I would place my wagers on the latter.
But I will await your sources.