The founding fathers in their writing claim that civil'human rights begin at birth. A person born in the USA also is automatically a citizen.
Many prolifers want to change this to "human life begins at conception" with full legal protection and rights as a born child. Accordingly then citizenship should convey "at conception," not at birth. Anyone in the USA as a tourist, on a VISA or illegally who "conceives" in the USA would have a American unborn child, correct?
The founding fathers in their writing claim that civil'human rights begin at birth. A person born in the USA also is automatically a citizen.
Many prolifers want to change this to "human life begins at conception" with full legal protection and rights as a born child. Accordingly then citizenship should convey "at conception," not at birth. Anyone in the USA as a tourist, on a VISA or illegally who "conceives" in the USA would have a American unborn child, correct?
Learn the difference between citizenship and personhood.
So you favor inferior "personhood" for fetuses, correct?
No. They're just not citizens.
So you deny that an "unborn" child and a born child are not the same, and that "unborn" children are not entitled to the rights, protections and privileges of citizenship.
So far, not ONE prolifer is sticking to their ranting on other threads that there is no difference between a fetus and a born child. Specifically, they do NOT want a fetus to have ANY citizen rights like born children.
The founding fathers in their writing claim that civil'human rights begin at birth. A person born in the USA also is automatically a citizen.
Many prolifers want to change this to "human life begins at conception" with full legal protection and rights as a born child. Accordingly then citizenship should convey "at conception," not at birth. Anyone in the USA as a tourist, on a VISA or illegally who "conceives" in the USA would have a American unborn child, correct?
What is the purpose of citizenship?
To understand the answer is to understand why unborn children do not need citizenship.
The founding fathers in their writing claim that civil'human rights begin at birth. A person born in the USA also is automatically a citizen.
Many prolifers want to change this to "human life begins at conception" with full legal protection and rights as a born child. Accordingly then citizenship should convey "at conception," not at birth. Anyone in the USA as a tourist, on a VISA or illegally who "conceives" in the USA would have a American unborn child, correct?
It is very simple. To give "the unborn" the same rights as a born child, which most prolifers claim UNLESS that might affect them, not just the woman.
That virtually ALL prolifers will do a 180 degree shift to claim 1.) the unborn are the same as a born child but 2.) except for legal status and then the unborn are inferior.
This then raises an issue I've often raised. If the "unborn" are not citizens, what jurisdiction and venue does the government have over it/he/she?
Where do any of the founding fathers claim that "civil human rights begin at birth"?
A fetus in not a PERSON under U.S. law.
Persons have rights under the Constitution, and it is clear that the authors of the Constitution and its amendments did not regard fetuses as persons.
In order to say that fetuses are persons under U.S. law, the Constitution would have to be amended to say so. Therefore the intentional killing of a fetus does not have same legal status as the killing of a person.
Its a moot point now that everyone is a citizen as long as they can get crossed the border without getting caught. But there is a distinction between person-hood and citizenship. Citizenship is specifically a birth right, as was pointed out. Person-hood and natural rights apply to all humans and have no relationship to citizenship or birth.
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. 55 ...
What is the purpose of citizenship?
To understand the answer is to understand why unborn children do not need citizenship.
Territorial. The government has jurisdiction over acts occurring in our territory.
Minimizing the hypocrisy between claiming there is no distinction as to right-to-life of a fetus and a born child is none-so-easy.
With the fetus a non-citizen, even if some members got their wish and a constitutional amendment or change in the Supreme Court's position for which abortion is defined as criminal murder (it is illegal to murder a non-citizen within the USA of course) - then all it means is the female would need to cross the border into Mexico, Canada, any other country or even go just a few miles offshore and out of the "territory" of the USA. for the abortion, which usually is a simplistic procedure. Or even just take a chemical abortion drug, taking it while NOT in the USA. Even if the fetus then aborted in the USA, the "killing" of the non-citizen did not occur within the USA.
While there can be basis to prosecute murdering an American in another country and certainly in International waters, there is no theory allowing prosecuting killing a non-American when not in American territory.
Thus, as I often point out, such laws really do NOT have the effect of outlawing abortions. Rather, only outlawing abortion to poor women. This also is why it is easy for many Republicans to support anti-abortion laws. They know they can afford to travel elsewhere - as was done in the past when abortions were illegal. Just take a trip to Canada.
If fetus are NOT citizens, there is no way to legally protect them from abortion except against poor women and very young girls unable to travel. Thus, it becomes the rich oppressing the poor, basically using them as breeding stock for cheap laborers to be raised by the poor to then service the wealthy.
Person hood does not apply to the unborn in the US.
Person hood only applies to the born.
The Justices rejected the fetal right to argument in the Roe v Wade decision.
Roe IX
Roe v. Wade | Supreme Court Decision | Part IX-X
Well, that is a "logical" progression to that line of thinking. If that human life starts there, as a fertilized egg...
:roll:History will show the pro-choice crowd to be a malicious group of baby killing sadists.
Are you under the impression that the SCOTUS has never over turned itself or that it is always right? We are a country of change. This to will change. It will return to what is right. History will show the pro-choice crowd to be a malicious group of baby killing sadists.
Are you under the impression that the SCOTUS has never over turned itself or that it is always right? We are a country of change. This to will change. ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?