Using the 14th amendment to justify abortion

[CharlesD]

I participate in a pro life board and lately there has been a rash of people on there trying to use the 14th amendment to justify abortion, claiming that it actually defines what a person is and how that definition doesn't apply to the unborn.  Here was my response to that assertion.  I have yet to get a single response to this post.  Any legal minded folks are welcome to let me know if I'm off base here.


The 14th amendment to the constitution:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. 

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

For now, we are going to concern ourselves with only the first article and the various ways it has been mis-interpreted over the years.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Ok, that's pretty straight forward.  If you are born in this country, or naturalized here, you are a citizen.  No argument so far from anyone.  Moving on to the mis-understood part.

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. 

This is a pretty radical statement when you read it literally.  The first part says that individual states are not allowed to supersede federal law and infringe on any rights guaranteed by the federal government.  But it doesn't stop there.  It doesn't stop with the rights of citizens, but goes on to say that any state cannot deprive any person of the rights of life, liberty, or property without due process.  In other words, the U.S. constitution not only guarantees the rights of U.S. citizens, but also says that states cannot deprive any person of those rights.  That is the wording that protects people like my wife who are residing here but who aren't citizens.  If you are in this country legally, you are protected by the constitution, even if you're not a citizen.

What does this have to do with the unborn, you might ask.  Well, can anyone find where in that wording that it defines a person as a citizen?  Hint:  It's not there.  The second part of that article simply uses the word person, but does not define it.

The first part of that article simply gives a definition of a citizen, a definition meant to include blacks, thereby giving them full constitutional rights as citizens.  Then it goes on to say that not only do the states have to recognize the rights of citizens, but that they have to recognize the rights of any person.  That's a pretty radical document, when you read it in light of the laws of other nations at that time.  We were saying that even non citizens have certain basic rights.  In other words, there are rights that are just intrinsic to being human and no government has the right to infringe on those rights.  But nowhere in that document does it define any person as those who have been born or naturalized.  That is the definition for a citizen.

What this boils down to is that the 14th amendment cannot be used to deny personhood to non citizens.  A literal reading does not allow for that interpretation.  The rights of life, liberty, and property are not limited to citizens and may not be denied by any state.  Abortion denies the right of life to unborn persons, thereby violating the 14th amendment.  How then can it be a constitutional right?

[Chris_]

You've applied logic.

Logic to a liberal is like sunlight to a vampire in the movies.

They consider the COTUS to be a "living document", and as such it is open to any interpretation necessary to fit their twisted ideals.

[franksolich]

Charles, sir, trying to talk to abortion enthusiasts is like trying to talk to a rock.

[CharlesD]

Charles, sir, trying to talk to abortion enthusiasts is like trying to talk to a rock.

It might be, but at least six of them have stopped posting on that board after I've applied similar logic to all their arguments.  "If I can't win, I'm taking my ball and going home.  Waaaaaaaaaa!"

[Ptarmigan]

I say overturn Roe v. Wade.

[CharlesD]

I say overturn Roe v. Wade.

Much easier if we have McCain filling judicial vacancies for the next four years.  Three of the oldest justices are liberals and there's a chance that whoever wins might get to fill two or three SCOTUS vacancies.  That could tip the court one way or the other for decades.

Overturning Roe just puts it in the hands of the states anyway, unless you get specific language in the ruling that recognizes the constitutional rights of the unborn.

[rich_t]

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Roe v Wade is overturned by a future supreme court.

This will not necessarily ban all abortions.  It will simply place the issue back into the hands of the individual states, were in rightfully resides to begin last. 

This day and age, I do not anticipate that many ,if any, states would actually make abortions illegal again.

Just my opinion.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The premise that since an aborted child has yet to be born an hence does not qualify as a citizen and ergo is not guaranteed equal protection is intriguing.

Of course we have to wonder how is it terrorists who are foreign-born, captured on foreign soil bearing arms against the US and detained on foreign soil can be afforded the rights of life, liberty and property through due process.

I wish to @#$% the gods--er--judges would explain that one to us.

This lie of liberal argument also throws doubt on partial-birth abortions and abortions where the child is delivered. It seems quite arbitrary to claim a fetus that is 51% along the birth canal is a citizen but one who is only 49% delivered is fair game.

[CharlesD]

The premise that since an aborted child has yet to be born an hence does not qualify as a citizen and ergo is not guaranteed equal protection is intriguing.

Which is an argument based on a faulty reading of the 14th amendment, but I'm preaching to the choir here.  Most of us are strict constructionists when it comes to constitutional interpretation around here.  But like I said, the part about being born was meant to qualify who is a citizen, but when it goes on to say that states can't deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, that goes beyond protections for citizens.  The abortion supporters try to say that the 14th amendment defines personhood as someone who has been born, while in reality that is the definition for a citizen, not a person.  It's interesting how they can twist things. 

I would argue that an enemy combatant has already had due process.  The fact that he is actively trying to kill our people makes the whole trial thing a moot point.  Any soldier understands the "due process" of pointing a rifle at his head and pulling the trigger.