"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:49:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


I'm in no mood for games. Let's cut to the chase. Show us anything in the
Constitution that suggests that a person has rights before he is born.
You
can take it from there.

If the Constitution does not directly address that a person has rights
prior to birth then doesn't that leave it to the states to decide?

Rehnquist and Bork would agree. Scalia too, probably. But, in the opinion of
most legal scholars, they would be wrong in this case. Roe v. Wade is a real
dilemma for legal scholars who don't like the outcome, because the
principles of it are very hard to deny without doing serious damage to
certain principles of Constitutional rights.

Bork doesn't accept those principles, so he has no problem with it -- except
that he's a stickler for precedent.

Unless there is some overriding principle?

There is. It's a potential conflict of rights, but, in the end, there is no
conflict because there is no Constitutional establishment of rights for a
gestating fetus. That's the crux of Roe. But don't leave it at that. There's
a lot more to it.


These are real questions not rhetorical ones :^). As I said you seem
to know more about it than I do.

All you have to do is to read the case. You'll have 50% or more of it right
there. Then you can start to read the commentary *with real knowledge* about
what's being commented upon.

Ed Huntress