Medical science has stated explicitly, over and over that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. That is all that medical science has said. I have looked up the word person in every legal dictionary that I can find both online and in libraries and even one law school library. Without fail, the law defines a person as a human being or a certain type of corporation that may be treated as a person in the eyes of the law. The law places no restrictions, or caveats upon being a person other than being a human being. Since unborns are inarguably human beings, it stands to reason that they are also persons and in this country, no person is supposed to have to forfiet his or her life without due process of the law.
Either you can defeat that argument or you can not. So far, you haven't even put a scratch in it.
No. I am afraid that I don't. You don't have a very good grasp of developmental biology so you aren't very clear. Which two cells? Name them and repeat the question.
Well of course you don't agree. To face the facts would call your faith into question. And the argument can't be made that the word born is viable throughout the text because of the punctuation used to separate that clause from the rest. Legal writing is what it is and I provided you with court cases that tested that clause against the other clauses and proved that it only applied to the rights of citizenship and not the other 14th amendment protections.
Are you saying that if the media got some juicy tidbit about George Bush's private life, or my private life, or your private life, that we would have the right to kill the media person in order to conrtol the flow of information about ourselves? If you are, then you really do have some problems, and if you aren't then your argument has failed.
There is no right to privacy in the constitution so a made up right to privacy takes a back seat to an actual right to live.
That isn't the nature of our law top gun. The law applies to everyone except those who are explicitly excluded by law. You must show me law that excludes embryonic human beings. The law is what it is and it is against you in this case.
Are you saying that illegal mexicans aren't persons because they aren't citizens? Once again, your argument fails.
You really need to read some about how our legal system works. Or change your position because the two are in direct conflict. In order for anyone to be denied a right, law must be written to deny them that right and there are examples of groups being denied rights based on age. Take for example, the right to bear arms. Law had to be written that explicitly denied people below a certain age that right in order to keep children from walking into a gun store and buying firearms and ammunition. Until the law was written that denied that right to children, they had the right to buy. The constitution itself denies the right to run for president from anyone below the age of 35 (?).
If rights are to be denied to unborns, law must be written that denies them that right. There are people in prison right now on manslaughter and murder charges for killing unborns. If law existed that explicitly denied them the right to live, then those who have been charged could not have been charged.
No, the case can not be made. I provided you with supreme court cases that proved that the clause only applies to citizenship and the rights and responsibilities that accompany it. The other clauses apply to everyone unless law is written that explicitly excludes them.
There were decades of precedent accompanying each of the more than 200 times they have reversed themselves.
And that is where your argument fails. All rights are secondary to the right to live.
Maybe you haven't realized that the court does not have quite so liberal a face any more. It isn't prone to inventing rights in order to satisfy a certain ideology any more.
