"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
In article idTGc.69545$kz.13495676
@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net, says...


Firstly, only humans have rights under law in the US. There is no
constitutional basis for establishing rights for anything other than a
human.

The unknown is the point at which a gestating fetus acquires the human
right
to due process under law. One traditional point of view is that this is
a
matter for elected legislatures to decide. Roe contradicted that by
saying
that there is no constitutional authority for legislatures to make such
a
decision *that would conflict with another, established right*. In other
words, state legislatures can make laws as long as they doesn't conflict
with rights. (Congress can only make laws that are within their
authority as
spelled out in the Constitution.)

I admit I've not read Roe, and don't know whether this
figures into the reasoning behind it, but the Constitution
and Bill of Rights make no mention of human or humans.
Rights are accorded to people, persons, or The People, not
humans. It seems to me, based on the dictionary definition
of human, that Roe could have gone the other way if the
word "human" was found in the Constitution in the proper
context. It's not there.

Ned Simmons

Right. When the word "human" appeared in this thread, I was going to say
something, but anything I could think of to say was doomed to send us off
into an irrelevant tangent, so I shut up about it. d8-)

Ed Huntress