• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:869]

Justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution and not inventing stuffs and redefining the Constitution to suit their activist agenda. There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution about women's rights, privacy or abortion. However, the 5th and 14th amendment clearly prohibit depriving life without due process. Clearly, Roe v Wade violated the Constitution by depriving prenatal life of its life without due process.

Sorry, you're completely wrong on so many levels. You comment is 100% opinion by you and obviously without regard to recorded facts.

A prenatal life has ZERO Constitutional rights, based on the premise that all those it (the Constitution) applies to are "BORN PERSONS".

Additionally "prenatal life" does not conform to the Congressional definitions of "person", "individual", "Human Being", "Child, as in Infant". This Congressional definition explicitly states that a YET TO BE BORN is not included within any of these terms. Consequently, a prenatal life is out of luck.

But what's so strange about your reply is that nothing I said is new to you. You're blatantly aware of my comments above.

As I previously stated, you choose not to understand the relationship of the 14th and the 5th Amendment that do indeed define women's right to privacy and the right to abort.
 
Justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution and not inventing stuffs and redefining the Constitution to suit their activist agenda. There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution about women's rights, privacy or abortion. However, the 5th and 14th amendment clearly prohibit depriving life without due process. Clearly, Roe v Wade violated the Constitution by depriving prenatal life of its life without due process.


There are Constitutional right to privacy zones which includes but is not limited to marriage, child rearing , contraception and legal abortions .

Perhaps this snip from a Science article will help you understand Constitutional right to privacy.
Constitutional rights

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy,
or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

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.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.

- See more at:

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws
 
I choose not to swallow your twisting and contortion of the Constitution to justify the killing of innocent human life. I stand on truth. You base your principle on lies. The Congressional definitions do not exclude prenatal life whatsoever. In fact, it stated the opposite. Even if they did, they cannot run counter to the Constitution.

In post #5 of mine, I quoted from the framer of the Constitution, James Wilson, who called YET TO BE BORN as INFANT stirring in the womb when he said:

"With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.26 By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger."


You can't get any more clearer than that. Your attempt at contortion fail again.
 
There are Constitutional right to privacy zones which includes but is not limited to marriage, child rearing , contraception and legal abortions .

Perhaps this snip from a Science article will help you understand Constitutional right to privacy.


- See more at:

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws
None of what you quote from your source about right to privacy can be found in the Constitution without twisting it out of shape. That's how you people get your stuffs by squeezing blood out of turnips.
 
I choose not to swallow your twisting and contortion of the Constitution to justify the killing of innocent human life. I stand on truth. You base your principle on lies. The Congressional definitions do not exclude prenatal life whatsoever. In fact, it stated the opposite. Even if they did, they cannot run counter to the Constitution.

In post #5 of mine, I quoted from the framer of the Constitution, James Wilson, who called YET TO BE BORN as INFANT stirring in the womb when he said:
"With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.26 By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger."


You can't get any more clearer than that. Your attempt at contortion fail again.

Choose not to accept reality all you want...I don't care.

Definition of Human Being Person Individual Child Infant

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)
 
None of what you quote from your source about right to privacy can be found in the Constitution without twisting it out of shape. That's how you people get your stuffs by squeezing blood out of turnips.

Right to privacy was established long before Roe.

There were several cases regarding the right to privacy which set the precedence for the Supreme Court decision regarding Roe v Wade. Including the precedents I listed below.



Weems v. United States (1910)

In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmsted v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)

The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.
 
Your ignorance on the Constitutional relationship to women's right to abort is something you choose to live with. Despite the provisions within those Amendments being so easy to explain how they do allow for women's right to abort, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

This type of demagoguery is a perfect example of what is synonymous of the pro-abortion groups. Close-minded zealots that refuse to discuss the merits of the issue.

Mr Dolph provides a thorough analysis of the 5th and 14th amendment and he gets called ignorant.
 
This type of demagoguery is a perfect example of what is synonymous of the pro-abortion groups. Close-minded zealots that refuse to discuss the merits of the issue.

Mr Dolph provides a thorough analysis of the 5th and 14th amendment and he gets called ignorant.

You're riding in the same boat of ignorance with DolphinOcean.
 
Right to privacy was established long before Roe.

There were several cases regarding the right to privacy which set the precedence for the Supreme Court decision regarding Roe v Wade. Including the precedents I listed below.



Weems v. United States (1910)

In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmsted v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)

The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.
These are judicial opinions of the 20th century jurists. None of them were framers of the Constitution. Even so, their opinion on right to privacy serves to protect right that did not deprive the life of innocent human being except in Roe v Wade, which clearly violated the 5th and 14th amendments. Roe v Wade also runs counter to the view of James Wilson, who was one of the framers of the US Constitution.
 
These are judicial opinions of the 20th century jurists. None of them were framers of the Constitution. Even so, their opinion on right to privacy serves to protect right that did not deprive the life of innocent human being except in Roe v Wade, which clearly violated the 5th and 14th amendments. Roe v Wade also runs counter to the view of James Wilson, who was one of the framers of the US Constitution.

The unborn are not mentioned in the Constitution and even though you came with a quote from James Wilson which mentions a unborn ... He mentions after the unborn " stirs" which is at quickening ( about 24 to 26 weeks gestation ).

Abortions were legal before quickening in the colonial days.
The framers of Constitution knew that and did not put anything in the Constitution about the unborn...only about the born.
 
The unborn are not mentioned in the Constitution and even though you came with a quote from James Wilson which mentions a unborn ... He mentions after the unborn " stirs" which is at quickening ( about 24 to 26 weeks gestation ).

Abortions were legal before quickening in the colonial days.
The framers of Constitution knew that and did not put anything in the Constitution about the unborn...only about the born.
The Constitution also never once mentions anything about newborn, toddler, child, adolescence, young adult, middle age and geriatrics either. It does mention Life in the context of "in the course of human events". So, what's your point exactly?

The concept of "quickening" arose from the British common law that was subsequently codified into statute in 1803. At that time the knowledge of embryology was still at its early infancy. Therefore, they did the best they could to protect prenatal life without infringing upon the rights of the pregnant women. Clearly, they viewed prenatal life in human womb as a living infant. They just gave the benefit of doubt to the women when it comes to uncertainty prior to quickening, that's all.

But, now we know and thus without any more excuse.
 
14th Amendment Substantive Due Process is not your friend.

Supposedly it's not the Supreme Court's friend, either. In decisions like Williamson Optical and Day-Brite Lighting, the majority piously intoned about the bad old days of Lochner and the "substantive due process era" of which it is the emblem. It said it recognized that it had acted like a super-legislature during that thirty-odd years from 1904 to 1937, and would now go and sin no more. Guess some of the justices forgot that.

And the 5th Amendment which gives us the right to privacy regarding information is also not your friend.

Evidently clear thinking is not your friend. As a lawyer, I am bound to respect all parts of the Constitution, particularly parts as basic as due process. Anyone who has ever prosecuted a criminal case knows damned well just how many constitutional pitfalls--including ones involving the defendant's due process rights--he has to avoid.

Ignore the fact that while "right to privacy" isn't directly written in the Constitution, it has been declared by numerous Justices as being inherent in the Constitution

Why would anyone ignore such an obviously relevant fact? I could point to other justices, for example Justice Thomas, who does not believe there is any general constitutional right to privacy. I accept that various parts of the first eight amendments imply some general right to personal privacy, but how far any such right extends is far from clear.

and the loss of such would impact several other Amendments - which would collapse the Constitution itself.

What in God's name are you talking about? The Constitution did not collapse during the 130-plus years before the Court began discoveringa general right to personal privacy in 1920's cases like Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters.

Right to privacy was established years before the Roe v Wade decision.

The Court had alluded to such a right in a series of cases that began with the two I just mentioned. But the fact that implied general right extends to decisions about rearing and educating one's children, or to procreation, as in Skinner v. Oklahoma, or to the use of contraceptives, as in Griswold, does not mean it also extends to abortion. The majority in Roe never bothered to support its assertion that it did with even a shred of legal reasoning. It just blithely said it did, and left it at that. That's why Roe has been pilloried as the piece of garbage it is for more than forty years now, in hundreds of academic articles.

With the great knowledge of constitutional law you profess to have, though, maybe you can give us the legal argument Harry Blackmun could not. But I wouldn't advise trying to support Blackmun's assertion that there is a fundamental right to abortion, located in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and applying through it to the states. Even the Court found that claim so laughable and embarrassing, in view of its standards for fundamental rights, that it abandoned it in Casey in 1992. That's why the Court has not applied strict scrutiny, which it applies where a fundamental right is involved, in abortion cases since 1992. Instead it uses a less demanding "undue burden" standard just for those cases, which it announced in Casey.
 
Last edited:
There are Constitutional right to privacy zones which includes but is not limited to marriage, child rearing , contraception and legal abortions .


Perhaps this snip from a Science article will help you understand Constitutional right to privacy.




- See more at:


Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws
I might add that right to privacy laws mentioned in your source are Statutory Laws derived from federal or state agency and not from the Constitution. They are enacted to protect the rights of individuals and NOT for the purpose of empowering the strong to infringe upon the rights of the weak to deprive them of life as in abortion. Your source also acknowledge that such right is "not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution".


As long as federal or state agency does not enact laws that deprive anyone of his or her life or infringing other rights retained by the people without due process then the 9th amendment can certainly applies. Once the SC ruled that it is legal to murder your own children by hired hands, then the SC is in violation of the Constitution that prohibits the government from depriving a person's life without due process. Thus, if Susan Smith and Andrea Yates were to bring a suit against the State and appealed to the SC, the SC cannot rule that the State violated their right to privacy and open the flood gate to the legalization of infanticide and child murder. It would be in violation of the Constitution on the right to life and due process.


Also, as I mentioned before in my previous post which you people don't even bother to read, right to privacy does not mean it gives you the carte blanche right to do whatever you want. Otherwise drug bust, pedophilia in privacy and child pornography in private would be legalized by the same judicial fiat.
 
No need to be concerned about my civic and reading literacy.
I assure you I am not concerned in the least. I was just pointing out how sorely lacking they are.

Your accusation is without substance, merely a deflection of your own lacking.
The proof is the inane assertion you made.

The right to privacy is nowhere to be found at the founding documents
Yet it IS an accepted fact.

Neither is the right to abortion.
Nor is there an empowerment of government to get involved in it or to outlaw it. As such that which is not forbidden IS a right, much the same way your ability to travel freely in this nation.

They're all carved out of thin air by the elected judges of the SC.
More ignorant talking points reinforcing your lack of knowledge and understanding of rights and the Constitution.

Norma McCorvey, the litigant in Roe v Wade, didn't even have an abortion.
So what? Do you know why?

Even if I grant you the right to privacy
What a great thing it is that it is not up to you.

Furthermore, nobody whines about violation of right to privacy when authority conducts drug bust
Here is a clue for you. Drugs are bad for society, abortions not so much.
 
Now, where's your conclusive evidence for the claim that the Constitution does not recognize fetuses in terms of Right to Life?
Because it does not reconize any right to life. If it did, say like the right to free speech or to bear arms it would, even if vaguely, attempt to define it. Moreover fetuses are not recognized and thus counted in the Census or allowed as dependents on tax returns, but children are.

Do you know what is "human events"?
Those conducted by born people.

You claim that the State antiabortion laws prior to Roe v Wade decision was enacted to protect pregnant women and not the fetus. Now, who are you trying to fool here?
WTF?

You may fool your gullible proabortion folks but not me or others who defend life.
No need to, you are already doing a wonderful job at it.
 
The 9th amendment does not intend to mean whatever not enumerated tantamounts to everything goes. That would open the flood gate for criminals to proclaim that their commission of crimes as rights retained by the people. Rape, robbery, murder , etc would then be legitimately claimed as rights by criminals. Remember, before Roe v Wade usurps the State power in striking down state antiabortion statute, abortion was a crime.
Seriously? Even elementary school children have a better understanding than that.
 
Now, where's your conclusive evidence for the claim that the Constitution does not recognize fetuses in terms of Right to Life? Before the DOI dwells into the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, it started out with the following, saying: "When in the Course of human events ..." Do you know what is "human events"?
Oh, you mean such events as the perfectly Natural death rate of about 2/3 of all unborn humans, between conception and a full-term birth (which might actually be a still-birth)? At least you know PART of the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The part you don't seem to know is, the DOI specified certain principles, but the Constitution, the actual Law of the Land, didn't fully embody those principles --which is why the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments) got ratified along-with the Constitution. Of course, as far as abortion opponents are concerned, even the Bill of Rights didn't go far enough.

Isn't human reproduction to beget another human being a human event?
Now you are taking a piece of the DOI out of context. Human reproduction has nothing to do with the human events that that document is all about. There is absolutely nothing in either the DOI or the Constitution indicating that human reproduction is a required event.

Of course it is. So are human fetuses in the course of fetal development. In every stage of development, it is a Life - a human life,
TRUE.
i.e a human being.
FALSE. You are now talking about something of which the dictionary is an unreliable source, for proving things.
For the full flavor of the word "being", you need to consider a wider view, cases in which the word is not used (like "toad being" and "worm being"), as well as other cases in which it is used (like "alien being" and "intelligent being"). The word is clearly a synonym for "person". But simply calling some entity a person, by using the word "being", doesn't automatically make it a person! Look to your own handle here, for a clue about personhood! What do all possible different types of persons, throughout the Universe, have in common? "Human-ness will most certainly not be one of those in-common things!!! (And the scientific evidence is, unborn humans have NONE of those things --the link describes just one-- while dolphins have plenty of them.)

So, when the DOI talks about unalienable Right to Life in terms of the course of human event, it includes every stage of Life from conception to adulthood.
Nice try, but you are ignoring the fact that about 2/3 of all unborn humans naturally die before or at birth, so where is their "right to life"? Also, here:
Declaration of Independence said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and ...
Only "men" are specified, not humans in general. Remember that a Constitutional Amendment was needed to grant women the right to vote. WE might take the word "men" to refer generically to all of mankind, but those who wrote both the DOI and the Constitution were doing no such thing! So that's another out-of-context thing you have done.

{snip stuff that doesn't apply to me personally} me or others who defend life.
ACTUALLY, YOU DON'T DEFEND LIFE.

(messge split in two parts because of length)
 
Last edited:
The US antiabortion statutes can be traced back to 1820s. They were based off the British common law to which the British antiabortion statute was enacted in 1803. At that time the science of modern embryology was still in its early infancy. So, the law-makers, in order to be certain, arbitrarily decided to outlaw abortion by the sign of fetal movement which they called "quickening".
YES; they didn't know about living cells, so there was no way of knowing if it was actually alive before it started moving. Did you know that some time after macroscopic life-forms like humans were found to be comprised of cells, descending from a single cell, that's when the Church decided it was wrong, that human ensoulment didn't begin at quickening? And various legislatures followed its lead with respect to changing abortion laws (entirely because of the wide association of personhood with souls), even though there was no proof of anything about human ensoulment (various modern facts and logic indicate the Church is STILL wrong! --but that can wait for some other message).

So, my questions to you are: do pregnant women do the "quickening" act herself after a long period of passive existence? What thing or who did the antiabortion law trying to protect the "quickening" pregnant women from?
Fetal kicking is Nature's answer to a Question asked by NASA: How do you strengthen bones in a reduced-gravity environment? (Answer: exercise)

Now, consider the comment of James Wilson, a framer of US Constitution. With regards to the antiabortion common law he states:
"With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.26 By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger."
"Common law" existed for a reason, which was mostly the simple pragmatic fact that it allowed a society to successfully survive over the long term. Now think about two important facts: (1) about 50% of all newborn children died by the age of 3 in that era, and (2) every government has a vested interest in ensuring future taxpayers exist. NO aspect of "rights" need be involved, in opposing abortion in those days!

Clearly, when he talked about "By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction ..." he was talking about prenatal human life in the womb. And he called it "the infant ... in the womb". Pregnant women aren't infants are they? The certainly aren't infants stirring in the womb.
Nevertheless, nothing of what you quoted about what he wrote need be taken as assigning right-to-life to the unborn. It could be done as a rationale to hide the pragmatic things mentioned above --humans are often rationalizing entities, not rational entities. Remember, the Constitution-plus-Amendments uses the word "person" throughout, and doesn't use the word "human" even once.

See how you are very good and adept in twisting things upside down so glaringly.
You haven't seen anything yet, so here:
The Constitution mandates a Census of all persons (except Indians not taxed), every ten years. While modified a bit by the 14th Amendment, ALL persons must be counted (except Indians not taxed). Here you will find a list of all the Questions ever asked by Census-takers, across 220 years. No unborn human has ever been counted as a person in any Census! Remember, the Founding Fathers were right there to specify the details of the first Census, in 1790. As a result, I care nothing about Roe v Wade; we have more than two centuries of Precedent, in which the unborn are not considered persons. (And if you wonder how that "oversight" happened, I suggest you consider two simple facts, (1) The Founding Fathers mostly considered themselves to be "gentlemen farmers", and (2) all farmers know this very ancient adage, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch!" It is a Stupid thing to do. But apparently abortion opponents want to embrace that Stupidity....
 
Last edited:
The Constitution also never once mentions anything about newborn, toddler, child, adolescence, young adult, middle age and geriatrics either.
But it does mention "born" a commonality that applies to your enumeration.
 
The Constitution also never once mentions anything about newborn, toddler, child, adolescence, young adult, middle age and geriatrics either. It does mention Life in the context of "in the course of human events". So, what's your point exactly?

The concept of "quickening" arose from the British common law that was subsequently codified into statute in 1803. At that time the knowledge of embryology was still at its early infancy. Therefore, they did the best they could to protect prenatal life without infringing upon the rights of the pregnant women. Clearly, they viewed prenatal life in human womb as a living infant. They just gave the benefit of doubt to the women when it comes to uncertainty prior to quickening, that's all.

But, now we know and thus without any more excuse.

Quickening was thought in Biblical times to be when the soul entered into the unborn. Some other pro choice religions feel ensoulment happens at birth.

As for quickening and common law abortion was legal before quickening and just a misdemeanor later in pregnancy.

Roe v Wade did search the Constitution

From Part IX Roe v Wade
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [Footnote 53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [Footnote 54]

[158]

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, 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. Footnote 55] This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented.
 
There's nothing in the Constitution about women's right to abort. Don't you think it's high time to be intellectually honest for a change? Straight face lie ain't gonna work no more.

There's nothing in the Constitution about the internet, either, but over the past 200+ years, we've kinda figured out that the amendments apply to certain situations that didn't exist back then.
 
I never said "personhood" is in the Constitution

You're clearly wrong. The term "personhood" is not in the Constitution. Neither the concept of it. You might as well invent the term "boogeymanhood" and insist it's a valid term for legal purpose. So, please desist in spreading the lie already.

I said "being born" was... and your argument is a massive failure that you can't even make semi-coherent.
 
Back
Top Bottom