 |
Under the Roe v. Wade decision, section 1 of the 14th Amendment,along with the other sections of the same, are often quoted to justify abortion before fetal viability. This same section reads:
"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 an person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Since mothers have the choice, under Roe v. Wade, of make fetuses persons (attain viability), without the any right of the male parent similarly to enforce his right to make this determination, doesn't this imply that male parent have no legally recognizable duty to the fetus as to do the same would be to deny the male parent equal protection of the law?
I disagree with Roe v. Wade decision in it's essential holding that a a non-viable fetus is not a "person" subject to 14th Amendment protection.
Why? The Court is simply defining what, in it's own opinion, is a 14th Amendment person. Scientific evidence clear establishes that a human being is created at conception, not a potential human being. Human beings undergo various stages of intellectual development and decay from conception until death such that no one stage can arbitrarily designated a "legal person". Thus, in my opinion, Roe v. Wade should be over ruled with state legislatures, though appropriate statutory law, determining what appropriate steps should be taken with regard to this issue rather than the personal value judgements of Supreme Court Justices with regard to this issue.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
