It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: windword
Not when it comes to Civil Rights.
The The Bill of Rights asserts that "All men are created equal". It took a Constitutional Amendment for men of color to be included in that statement. It took another one to include women. It's gonna take a Constitutional Amendment to include the unborn too.
When Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal," he didn't mention women. But did he mean to include women? No one knows; perhaps not. We do know that in the eighteenth century the words "men" and "mankind" included men and women. Did he mean to include black men when he said "all men?" Historians argue about that. Jefferson was a complicated man—he thought slavery was wrong, yet he owned slaves. But this is the important part: Thomas Jefferson's great Declaration of Independence has grown even greater with the passing of time. Today, when people all over the world read his words, they understand them to mean all people—men, women, and children—of all colors and beliefs.
The concept that all men are created equal was a key to European Enlightenment philosophy. But the interpretation of "all men" has hovered over the Declaration of Independence since its creation. Although most people have interpreted "all men" to mean humanity, others have argued that Jefferson and the other authors of the Declaration meant to exclude women and children. Within the context of the times it is clear that "all men" was a euphemism for "humanity," and thus those people, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, who used the Declaration of Independence to demand equality for African Americans and women seized the historical as well as the moral high ground.
Have you ever even read the actual ruling? I mean, I linked to it--you should read it. I'll help you out with the relevant verbiage, though: For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
...For the preservation of the life or health of the mother, not the fetus, embryo or fertilized egg!
It is not a 50/50 prospect that Roe V Wade will be overturned by a change of justices and their opinions, though. If it was Roe V Wade would have been overturned already. But it can't be without affecting the rights of every American, not just pregnant women, so it won't be. ...
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: shooterbrody
the problem lies within these laws, how does one prove that an abortion is medically necessary without providing the personal information concerning the case.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: dawnstar
Why would the "reason for an abortion" be given to the state or anyone else for that matter? Does the aforementioned state also keep tabs on the "reasons for a nosejob"? If the state does not isn't that discriminatory?
Why at this date would one have to prove the medical necessity? Is there currently any language in any state that demands this? Would the current HIPPA laws not protect this?
And I would argue that it shouldn't have had to take those special amendments to include all human beings, but it did, and that's because of the way that the Constitution was interpreted. Furthermore, it is the preamble to the constitution that includes that phrase, not the bill of rights (which talks about the rights of "the people," not "men").