Thursday, August 23, 2012

A prolife constitutional amendment you can't refuse

A prolife constitutional amendment you can't refuse:

Even is we accept that a fully human fetus (medical consensus: 14 to 20 weeks?) is not a legal person until born -- if liberals incongruously insist on going Robert Bork, Edwin Meese-strict construction on this lone issue -- everyone should agree to the inalienable right to life of prenatal humans (and all other human rights) whether recognized by the Constitution or not.  

Therefore, all should equally easily accept a constitutional amendment insuring full equality of born and unborn rights -- to be regulated by legislatures prior to the stage of medical consensus on humanity.

Someday medical advances will permit prenatal humans to go temporarily postnatal -- to be temporarily removed from the womb and then returned to complete gestation.  Extracted fetuses will travel as legal persons and must retain that status upon return.  Will the courts then allow one class of fetuses to be "slave" and another "free"?  So much for strict construction.

Under strict construction, if a future traveling fetus leaves a stay behind twin, does the left behind become a legal person at any point in the travelers journey; and if so, when?  Under strict construction I would say that at the moment the traveling twin sees the light of day, the stay behind becomes a legal person: the social equal of my legal equal must be my legal equal.  For certain, when the stay behind is rejoined with the company of now a legal person it must be a legal person.  So much for silliness. 

For full silliness: if the courts use the kind of logic (or whatever it was) that produce the old "born alive" common law rule -- that if you injured an unborn baby and it was born alive and died you could be charged with murder (but not if it died prenatally) -- then in the case of a traveling fetus not rejoining the left behind, the courts could possibly rule that the left behind would not become a legal person; but if it returned the stay behind was a legal person from the beginning of the other's journey.  So much for the silliness of liberal-strict construction.

No comments: