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
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
David Daleiden Doubles Down
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: 69230777" data-attributes="member: 8344"><p>Personhood is the central issue in the legal sense. Have you read Roe v. Wade? Section IX is the key. Justice Blackmun's opinion discusses this in some legal and historical detail. And this is what the Court's majority found:</p><p></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p></p><p><em><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113" target="_blank">https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113</a></em></p><p><em></em></p><p>This is very strict, textualist construction. (Which most conservatives generally support.) The Constitution never explicitly states, or even implies, that the unborn have any rights independent of the mother. I know this invites comparison with Scott v. Sanford. And it does, because at that time, the legal rights of Black persons was also never specified in the text of the Constitution. Scott v. Sanford was corrected by the 14th Amendment. And for all the states to recognize the unborn as legal persons will also require an amendment.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jayem, post: 69230777, member: 8344"] Personhood is the central issue in the legal sense. Have you read Roe v. Wade? Section IX is the key. Justice Blackmun's opinion discusses this in some legal and historical detail. And this is what the Court's majority found: [I]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.[/I] [I][URL]https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113[/URL] [/I] This is very strict, textualist construction. (Which most conservatives generally support.) The Constitution never explicitly states, or even implies, that the unborn have any rights independent of the mother. I know this invites comparison with Scott v. Sanford. And it does, because at that time, the legal rights of Black persons was also never specified in the text of the Constitution. Scott v. Sanford was corrected by the 14th Amendment. And for all the states to recognize the unborn as legal persons will also require an amendment. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
David Daleiden Doubles Down
Top
Bottom