What to know about abortion and the 2024 election

Believe it or not I once had a RC Priest tell me about the same thing as the unfortunate reality is if abortion was made completely illegal it will just drive some to have abortions that are entirely safe etc. For the record, I am pretty much anti abortion but one has to be a realist in this day and age. Education etc is probably the key to reducing the numbers of abortions in this Country.

Thanks for your comment Captain Prickett. Another Rally Point member just voted my opinion down and told that if I don't have a uterus I should mind my own business. It was kind of funny but very unprofessional. Let me explain why I disagree that under American law the unborn are meant to be considered persons. This is my rationale.

I believe that the Constitution prohibits the SCOTUS from changing the English Language. The Roe Court tells us that, “[the] appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.” It observes that “if this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” But the answers to just five questions place fetal personhood itself beyond doubt and have nothing to do at all with any constitutional amendment: (Question 1) The framers used no adjectives to restrict the meaning of the words “life”, “men”, or “person”; therefore, looking to the most accessible English language dictionaries of the late 18th century, what was the least restrictive definition of “person?” (Answer 1): A person is a “human being; considered with respect to mere corporal existence.” Person is “a general loose term for a human being …a man.” (Question 2) Is this definition consistent with the Declaration of Independence? (Answer 2): Yes. The Declaration of Independence states “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The word “men” is the plural of “man,” which the framers’ dictionaries define as a “human being.” Therefore, the words “men”, “persons”, and “human being” are synonymous, as a person is a general loose term for a human being or a man. (Question 3): Does the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution identify any point in a human being’s development across the lifespan when it is not a person? (Answer 3): No. The human being is a person the instant that its physical presence begins to grow and develop. It ceases being a person only upon death. Whether the mother is aware of her pregnancy is neither a relevant issue nor a constitutional one. (Question 4): Regarding the definitions of English words, including “man,” “person,” and “human being,” is there anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution where any branch of government is authorized to change the meaning of the English language from that readily discoverable in the most accessible English language dictionaries of the late 18th century? (Answer 4): No. In fact, to change the meaning of any word is not an interpretation of meaning, but a constitutionally prohibited alteration of meaning, one that prevents interpretation altogether. Finally, (Question 5): Is a human fetus a person within the meaning of the Constitution? (Answer 5): Yes. There is no English language interpretation that can lead to an alternative answer. But the Supreme Court neither asked nor answered any of these questions.

Even Thomas Jefferson recognized the personhood of the unborn.

(Note 1: Per Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court must “say what the law is”, which is not to say what it believes the law should have been or should be.)

(Note 2: On a list including over 5000 volumes, including 26 language dictionary titles, there is only one title used by the Congress that is solely dedicated to the English Language: (1) Samuel Johnson (1709–1784), A Dictionary of the English Language (DOEL)… (2 vols., London, 1755; 4th ed., 2 vols., London, 1775))

(Note 3: Thomas Jefferson’s proposal regarding an education requirement for continued Virginia citizenship is also instructive on this point. In the quoted passage, which follows, Mr. Jefferson ensures that the phrase “under the age of twelve years” does not inadvertently exclude persons who, although unheard and unseen during the term of their mothers’ pregnancies, are in fact persons “under the age of twelve years.” Mr. Jefferson:
“[No] person unborn or under the age of twelve years at the passing of this act, and who is compos mentis, shall, after the age of fifteen years, be a citizen of this commonwealth until he or she can read readily in some tongue, native or acquired.”)

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff “Business!” cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. “Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!” Ebenezer Scrooge from A Christmas Carol

CAPT Kevin M. Mc Guinness - If someone doesn't want an abortion they don't have to get one. If someone has no uterus, they have no business legislating those who do have one. Abortion is healthcare - PERIOD.

Also I was not "unprofessional" in any way. Have a day.

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff I respect your right to your opinion but instead of telling me to shut up by voting me down and retaliating repeatedly when I respectfully express my opinion or quote Dickens, why don’t you try to explain yourself. I’m sure there are others on this forum who don’t agree with me but they don’t attack, they discuss. And I listen to them; I try to understand them, and I respectfully reply to them. Yet you seem to want to punish me for my opinion by voting my opinions down and taking points away, rather than explain your own. Repetition adds nothing. That maybe your privilege, but retaliation without explanation is an unproductive effort to stifle discussion.