From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:38:47 GMT

mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:

> (vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:

>[mega snip]

>: Once again, Ms. Smith went and had sex without using her brain.  Murder
>: is murder.  There is no such thing as a potential citizen except in the legal
>: sense.  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
the legal definition of person.  It's purpose was to force states to
follow the same restrictions on rights as the federal government.  There is
no reason that preborn babies could not be defined as "persons" legally,
and not be yet considered "citizens".  Foreign visitors to our
country are accorded the same rights as our citizens without being
defined as such.

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.  


>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.  

>From my past readings (I don't have the books with me now, but I will find them
>in the library) I have learned that it is possible to separate the cells of the
>blastomere and produce effective twins, quadruplets, etc. (I don't remember how
>many identical siblings can be produced this way, I'll find that too).  If all
>these conceptums are citizens, then it should be possible to populate Rhode
>Island with more citizens than the rest of the country combined.  Thus, in the
>House of Representatives, the will of Rhode Island can hold sway over the will
>of the rest of the country.  For that matter, the entire population of Rhode
>Island can be sent to Congress and the rest of the country would be supporting
>the Rhode Islanders.

>Similarly, the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Ammendment would require a 
>change to the IRS tax code, allowing the conceptum to be used as a tax
>deduction for personal income taxes (currently, only a person who is born is 
>allowed for the purposes of deductions).  What about those rare women who can 
>conceive but who cannot bear a conceptum to term?  If such a woman concieves 
>once per month, do we allow her to claim 12 tax deductions for the year?

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.  


>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.  


>:
>: >SJM
>:
>: Edward Simmonds
>:
>:
>: - 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.

>-- 
>Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 


Edward Simmonds

Newsgroups: talk.abortion