From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:28:27 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu spouts:
>mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>> (vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:

>>: Morally and scientifically life begins at fertilization, and so does
>>: citizenhood.

>>This contravenes the 14th Amendment which states: "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. ..."
>>Fetuses are not citizens.

>If you didn't notice, I conceded the current LEGAL definition of "citizen"
>does not include the preborn.  The 14th amendment is NOT what established

You said that citizenhood begins at fertilization. And, according to
my dictionary, (not a legal one, BTW) citizen is a person, classified
as one who is born. It is impossible for a fetus to meet any of the
definitions of citizen.

    citizen - 1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or
	      naturalization to the protection of a particular state.
	      2. A resident of a city or town, esp. one permitted to
	      vote and enjoy other priviledges there. 3. A civilian,
	      as distinguished form an employee of the state.

	 -- Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary

>Foreign visitors to our
>country are accorded the same rights as our citizens without being
>defined as such.

You realize, of course, that this statement and the implications in the
one below contradict each other?

>At one time blacks were not legally citizens either.  All it took was
>an amendment to rectify that gross injustice.  There is NO reason
>why an amendment couldn't establish the preborn as citizens.

They weren't legally considered persons either. You are aware that citizens
who commit felonies are no longer "citizens" of these United States?
That all those who immigrate, or just visit, are also not citizens?
That what occurred to many blacks before the Emancipation Proclamation
and Amendments 13, 14, and 15 was illegal to propogate on whites in
these classifications (although indentured servants were pretty close
in status)? That you are wrong?

>>Let's assume that the conceptum (z/e/f) is a citizen.  Then, by the Equal
>>Protection clause and the Apportionment Clause of the 14th Ammendment, the
>>conceptum must be counted for the purposes of representation within the House
>>of Representatives.

>Let us consider that this is a stupid hypothesis.  I have established
>above that even if the preborn were NOT citizens, they could still be
>persons with all the rights accorded thereby.

You have established nothing. You have blatantly asserted stupid hypotheses
left and right, however. AND, as far as I remember about legal counts
done by the Census Bureau for determining Districts for the House seats,
it is a count of *persons*, not citizens, that determines the size and
location of the districts. So the "stupid" hypothesis is actually a
real concern, or are you implying that only citizens should be counted
for representation? (If this is in error, I'm sure it will be corrected
by someone.:)

[deletia about multiple persons being created by separating cells and
the IRS...]

>You are being stupid.  Laws are being changed constantly to adjust to
>changes in society.  There is no reason why these insignificant and
>thoroughly nitpicky little details couldn't be accomodated.

So changing the status of a fetus to that of a person is insignificant???
Then why do you bother? :)

>>These are the problems inherent in the concept of conceptum as citizen.

>Once again, it's not even necessary that the preborn be a citizen.  As
>long as it was legally defined as a person that would guarantee it's right
>to life.

Then again, I've shown that these concerns are valid for even considering
the fetus as a person. There is no historical precedent for this either,
and no good reason (obviously, as if there were, then so many would
not argue against it) to change the precedent.

>>: - My opinions are my own... but they are also perfectly correct -

>>Your opinions are your own, but they contain some flaws.

>Never have, never will.

I supply the above to show errors in your opinions.
I've seen you spouting unregulated bunk for some time now, but this
assertion I just couldn't pass up. :]

Ron                          
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
Place on your front bumper... :)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion