Harvard Law Journal Concludes Unborn Babies Have Constitutional Rights

[Revmitchell]

The Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, declares that no state shall “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.” A debate that has been raging in courtrooms for years is whether the “life” part includes unborn persons.

Harvard Law student Joshua Craddock did some constitutional soul searching to answer that question in a new report for the Harvard Law Journal, concluding that unborn babies do fall under the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections.

One might look to dictionaries of legal and common usage, the context of the English common law tradition, and cases that attempted to construe the meaning of the text in a manner consistent with original meaning. Using this methodology, it is reasonable to construe the Fourteenth Amendment to include prenatal life. The structure of the argument is simple: The Fourteenth Amendment’s use of the word “person” guarantees due process and equal protection to all members of the human species. The preborn are members of the human species from the moment of fertilization. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment protects the preborn. If one concedes the minor premise (that preborn humans are members of the human species), all that must be demonstrated is that the term “person,” in its original public meaning at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption, applied to all members of the human species.

Harvard Law Journal Concludes Unborn Babies Have Constitutional Rights | LifeNews.com

 

[HankD]

Amazing!!

HankD

 

[carpro]

Harvard? Of all places!

 

[Happy]

"The Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, declares that no state shall “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.” A debate that has been raging in courtrooms for years is whether the “life” part includes unborn persons."

Well respected, Webster Dictionary 1828

Person ~
An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.

Individual ~ (1828)
Not divided, or not to be divided; single; one;

Individual ~ (Merriam - Webster)
existing as a distinct entity : separate

Person ~ (legally defined)
A human being, naturally born.

Harvard Law student Joshua Craddock did some constitutional soul searching to answer that question in a new report for the Harvard Law Journal, concluding that unborn babies do fall under the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections.

Joshua Craddock is precisely WHY one should not look to the "student" for answers and conclusions; but rather to the "teacher" for answers and conclusions!

Scripture already notifies us;
Adam was the first of MAN-"KIND" (KIND being DUST OF the Earth).
Adam was FORMED (meaning not formING, but that his FORM was "complete")
After Adam was formED; God blew LIFE into Him, the INDIVIDUAL ONE MAN.
That LIFE that God BLEW into Adam's formED body, was a SOUL with Life from God,
Thus it was AT THAT POINT, man-"KIND" was called a "LIVING SOUL".

It is there after we learn God's plan of "reproducing" manKIND.
Thru copulation between a MALE and FEMALE of manKIND.
The fertilization of a FEMALE egg, via a MALE seed.
The "formING" of a BODY, BY GOD, over the course of 9 months.
During the nine months the FormING BODY is NOT separate, but IS attached to the FEMALE, within the individual Females own individual BODY.
The LAW of NATURE dictates, after 9 months, the body has completed it's formING process, and exits the BODY of the FEMALE, (called BORN) and becomes SEPARATED from the FEMALE, (via severing the connective cord, called the umbilical cord).
The SEPARATION from the FEMALE, dictates the TIME FRAME, "A" single formED, INDIVIDUAL is REVEALED....
And NOTHING in Scripture reveals ANYTHING has changed; that an INDIVIDUAL receives VIA Gods BREATH, a living Soul.

Nothing in the medical field of Science dictates that a BABE in the Womb of a FEMALE is an INDIVIDUAL, but in fact the medical field of Science fully supports that a BABE in the Womb IS in the PROCESS of formING, NOT an individual HUMAN BEING whose own BODY is capable of sustaining itself. The formING BODY within the womb of a WOMAN is FULLY dependent on the WOMAN'S own individual BLOOD (via the placenta), for the BODY of the BABE to continue formING, until it reaches a the formED state and can be SEVERED from the FEMALE, AS an INDIVIDUAL BORN BEING.

Joshua Craddock touted "constitutional soul searching" is a crock of nonsense, based on his own "feelings" and "opinions", and should be viewed as such.

Students, by the very understanding of WHAT a student is; should notify you they have more questions than answers; and their "supposed" conclusions, have NO requirement to be based in FACT or LAW.

While "soul" searching sounds like there may be a hint of Biblical knowledge that "maybe" contributed to his "conclusion".
Any Biblical scholar would be well aware, one speaking of the "soul", is not exclusive to one being a student of, or knowledgeable of what Scripture teaches.

There are "different" "KINDS" of "things" CALLED "MEN".
There is ONLY ONE "KIND" of a thing that IS a "HUMAN", which IS a completely FORMED BY BODY (by God, via the DUST of the Earth, AND, that IS ALSO a separate individual, AND, who has ALSO, received from God a SOUL containing His Breath of Life.)

HUMAN ~

That,^, does NOT apply to UNBORN babies, of Human Women, who became pregnant, via a Human Male seed.
That,^, does NOT apply to Angels who, came to Earth and mated with Human Females.
That,^, does NOT apply to Holy Jesus; the Holy Word of God; the Holy Christ.
That,^, does NOT apply to the unseen Holy God.
That,^, does NOT apply to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Revmitchell]

Well respected, Webster Dictionary 1828

Person ~
An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.

Individual ~ (1828)
Not divided, or not to be divided; single; one;

Individual ~ (Merriam - Webster)
existing as a distinct entity : separate

Person ~ (legally defined)
A human being, naturally born.



Joshua Craddock is precisely WHY one should not look to the "student" for answers and conclusions; but rather to the "teacher" for answers and conclusions!

Scripture already notifies us;
Adam was the first of MAN-"KIND" (KIND being DUST OF the Earth).
Adam was FORMED (meaning not formING, but that his FORM was "complete")
After Adam was formED; God blew LIFE into Him, the INDIVIDUAL ONE MAN.
That LIFE that God BLEW into Adam's formED body, was a SOUL with Life from God,
Thus it was AT THAT POINT, man-"KIND" was called a "LIVING SOUL".

It is there after we learn God's plan of "reproducing" manKIND.
Thru copulation between a MALE and FEMALE of manKIND.
The fertilization of a FEMALE egg, via a MALE seed.
The "formING" of a BODY, BY GOD, over the course of 9 months.
During the nine months the FormING BODY is NOT separate, but IS attached to the FEMALE, within the individual Females own individual BODY.
The LAW of NATURE dictates, after 9 months, the body has completed it's formING process, and exits the BODY of the FEMALE, (called BORN) and becomes SEPARATED from the FEMALE, (via severing the connective cord, called the umbilical cord).
The SEPARATION from the FEMALE, dictates the TIME FRAME, "A" single formED, INDIVIDUAL is REVEALED....
And NOTHING in Scripture reveals ANYTHING has changed; that an INDIVIDUAL receives VIA Gods BREATH, a living Soul.

Nothing in the medical field of Science dictates that a BABE in the Womb of a FEMALE is an INDIVIDUAL, but in fact the medical field of Science fully supports that a BABE in the Womb IS in the PROCESS of formING, NOT an individual HUMAN BEING whose own BODY is capable of sustaining itself. The formING BODY within the womb of a WOMAN is FULLY dependent on the WOMAN'S own individual BLOOD (via the placenta), for the BODY of the BABE to continue formING, until it reaches a the formED state and can be SEVERED from the FEMALE, AS an INDIVIDUAL BORN BEING.

Joshua Craddock touted "constitutional soul searching" is a crock of nonsense, based on his own "feelings" and "opinions", and should be viewed as such.

Students, by the very understanding of WHAT a student is; should notify you they have more questions than answers; and their "supposed" conclusions, have NO requirement to be based in FACT or LAW.

While "soul" searching sounds like there may be a hint of Biblical knowledge that "maybe" contributed to his "conclusion".
Any Biblical scholar would be well aware, one speaking of the "soul", is not exclusive to one being a student of, or knowledgeable of what Scripture teaches.

There are "different" "KINDS" of "things" CALLED "MEN".
There is ONLY ONE "KIND" of a thing that IS a "HUMAN", which IS a completely FORMED BY BODY (by God, via the DUST of the Earth, AND, that IS ALSO a separate individual, AND, who has ALSO, received from God a SOUL containing His Breath of Life.)

HUMAN ~

That,^, does NOT apply to UNBORN babies, of Human Women, who became pregnant, via a Human Male seed.
That,^, does NOT apply to Angels who, came to Earth and mated with Human Females.
That,^, does NOT apply to Holy Jesus; the Holy Word of God; the Holy Christ.
That,^, does NOT apply to the unseen Holy God.
That,^, does NOT apply to the Holy Spirit.

Has got to be the saddest and worst post on this board since I have been here.

 

[Happy]

Has got to be the saddest and worst post on this board since I have been here.

Not unlike many of your comments.....of not addressing the facts, but rather simply making negative comments based on your feelings.....reveals...

You are among those who can not handle the TRUTH, and THAT is too bad for you.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not unlike many of your comments.....of not addressing the facts, but rather simply making negative comments based on your feelings.....reveals...

You are among those who can not handle the TRUTH, and THAT is too bad for you.

I'll tell you what, when you post something worth responding to beyond such a post I promise I will. What you posted was beyond absurd and at its core evil.

 

[Happy]

I'll tell you what, when you post something worth responding to beyond such a post I promise I will. What you posted was beyond absurd and at its core evil.

LOL ~

Webster's Dictionary is absurd and evil? LOL

Saying...
unborn babies in the forming stage, Angels, Holy Jesus, Holy Christ, Holy God, Holy Spirit; are not Human beings...
Is absurd and evil? LOL

[Edited - insults removed]

 

[Revmitchell]

Webster dictionary does not say that.

 

[Happy]

Webster dictionary does not say that.

Good grief. Do you even read before you post? You replied to a post, whereby I posted definitions FROM OUT OF WEBSTER"S DICTIONARY!

Your comment to my post was it was absurd and evil! HELLO, my post included Webster's definitions along with the WHOLE of EVERYTHING ELSE I SAID.

Since you are incapable of reading a post, deciding what you do agree with and what you don't agree with, and addressing each accordingly.....and instead blurt out in response to the whole post .... calling it absurd and evil....

WELL? Guess what. Your response thus applies to the WHOLE of the post!

It's not my job to pretend you mean anything other than what you say.

I posted several things in my post....your response to my post was it was absurd and evil.

Not my problem you do not want to be responsible for your own words!

And too bad if you do not like me pointing out things you have called "absurd and evil"....