Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Is or can abortions constitute selfishness in some cases?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jayem" data-source="post: 70696141" data-attributes="member: 8344"><p>You're entitled to your opinion, but the legal status of a fetus is not addressed in the Constitution. So, under our system of laws, it becomes what the Supreme Court says it is. Even Justice Scalia--the favorite of conservatives--agreed that a fetus is not a person as that term is used in the Constitution. This is from a 2008 interview on 60 Minutes:</p><p></p><p><em>"My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. <strong>They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons," </strong>(emphasis mine)</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-scalia-on-the-record/2/" target="_blank">Justice Scalia on the record</a></em></p><p></p><p>Sure, you may think that's reminiscent of Dred Scott and is highly unjust. There is a way to correct it. Scott v. Sanford was nullified by the 14th Amendment. And similarly, the proper way to recognize legal personhood for the unborn is to amend the Constitution.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jayem, post: 70696141, member: 8344"] You're entitled to your opinion, but the legal status of a fetus is not addressed in the Constitution. So, under our system of laws, it becomes what the Supreme Court says it is. Even Justice Scalia--the favorite of conservatives--agreed that a fetus is not a person as that term is used in the Constitution. This is from a 2008 interview on 60 Minutes: [I]"My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. [B]They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons," [/B](emphasis mine) [URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-scalia-on-the-record/2/"]Justice Scalia on the record[/URL][/I] Sure, you may think that's reminiscent of Dred Scott and is highly unjust. There is a way to correct it. Scott v. Sanford was nullified by the 14th Amendment. And similarly, the proper way to recognize legal personhood for the unborn is to amend the Constitution. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Is or can abortions constitute selfishness in some cases?
Top
Bottom