actually no because Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness pertain to thinking breathing adults, a fetus is a part of a womans body, a part that is in development but not yet matured or individualized, hence there is no Constitutional president...
in fact you could use this argument in favor of the womans choice to pursue Life and Liberty..
remember less than 2% of all abortions are partial birth and almost always take place when the Mother or Child is in danger.. this is a lightning rod issue designed to take the heat off much more pressing subjects.
2007-05-07 14:07:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 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.
The key words are all persons born naturalized have the right to life liberty and pursuit happiness till your born your not a person
2007-05-09 12:06:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by pixiedraco2003666 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
The pursuit of happiness is first of all not in the constitution, it is in the declaration of independence.
The problem with calling abortion a denial of a person's right to life and liberty (property is actually what is in the constitution), is that a fetus is not a 'person'. It is just as much a scientific debate as it is a legal one.. until a fetus is viable outside of the womb, it is not considered alive, hence, not a person.
2007-05-07 22:53:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
That phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution does not ban murder. If you murder someone in your hometown, that is not a federal crime. The only clause in the Constitution that might apply is the 5th amendment:
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
But this applies only to the government, not private citizens.
According to the Supreme court, fetuses aren't people.
2007-05-07 21:08:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Nope, it pre-dates the constitution, it goes all the way back to some philosipher, who said that all men have the right to life, liberty, and property, which Jefferson changed to pursuit of happiness, and stuck in the DOI, however, abortion is murder, and murder is illegal, so abortion should be illegal, but for some reason, it isn't.
We should get the 'doctors' who perform abortions to preside over executions, since they obviously have no regard for human life.
To Excite and Angry Patriot: You are nothing more than a group of cells,you can say that a fetus won't survive if it is removed from the mother, neither will her finger.
2007-05-07 21:08:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by The Great Hobo 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
I think that abortion is unethical and unconstitutional, but "pursuit of happiness" isn't mentioned in the Constitution. That phrase appears in the Declaration of Independence, which holds absolutely no legal weight.
To the person below me - a sperm and egg are reproductive cells. When they join together, they create a new life. This is high school biology. Why don't you know the difference?
I'm not Catholic. Who cares what the Catholics think? We're talking about science and ethics, not religion. Now answer the question. Don't you know the difference between gametes and fertilized eggs?
2007-05-07 21:04:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by TheOrange Evil 7
·
4⤊
2⤋
Well that depends on your view of abortion, which is very much an opinion by itself.
A pro-choice person would see the fetus as part of a woman and believe that denying the woman their right to abortion would be infringing on her Constitutional rights.
A pro-life person would see the fetus as an independent, conscious human life, and therefore would believe an abortion would be an infringement on the fetus's Constitutional rights.
2007-05-07 21:09:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by Liberals love America! 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
The US Supreme court upheld that a woman has a choice to cut a "group" of cells out of herself, but like it allows people to modify themselves with sex changes. It went so far as to say that after the 1st 3-months it is "living" and can't be aborted. I guess that is when it gets its civil rights.
Without the host, the "person" has no rights or way of life. Since it wouldn't live without living on the host, I'd say it doesn't have life yet.
2007-05-07 21:15:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by AngryPatriot 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
The Constitution only applies to the government. And even the government can deny you of those things for a good reason, such as committing a crime or collecting taxes.
On the other hand, in case you hadn't noticed, the right to abortion is based on the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Nice try though.
2007-05-07 21:11:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
I agree wtih that and have used that argument. However, the liberal constructionists of the Supreme Court at that period of time did not. The 3 things you mentioned can also be claimed by women wanting abortions. They can say that the fetus is risking their life, denying them freedom over their own body, and taking away their pursuit of happiness (if that pursuit means consequence-free sex).
In regards to the person 3 posts down, are you not a group of cells? If you were not a group of cells, you would not be here. What makes one group of cells more worthy or better than another group of cells of the same species?
2007-05-07 21:03:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
5⤋