Welcome to Gaia! ::

I am doing a complete update on my Pro-life thread in the Extended Discussion thread. One common area of the abortion debate that a great percentage have misconceptions about is the 14th amendment. I wrote out a more extensive explanation of the 14th amendment. Is it understandable and does it get the point across? This is just a rough draft.

EDIT:
Any advice to make it better would be appreciated.



There are those who advocate the idea that due to the fact that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says “born”, that it does not afford the unborn these rights. Such interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is completely erroneous.

U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1:
“Section 1. 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.”

A closer examination of each clause and of the history of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution will divulge the truth. The American Civil War started in 1861 and ended in 1865. When the Union won the war, the government wanted to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already given U.S. citizenship to those born in the United States. The framers of the 14th Amendment wanted to insure that this right could not be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and could not be overruled by a simple majority vote by Congress in the future which would put all their work in vein. To do so, they decided to write the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution a specific way.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
This clause is the reinforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. What this clause is stating is the legal requirements for citizenship.

Requirement for U.S. citizenship is that a person must be:
-Born in the U.S.
Or
-Naturalized in the U.S.

The problem that many have when it comes to interpreting this amendment is that they see the word born and compulsorily assume that it is the requirement for protection of the U.S. government. This is not the case. This clause is just a legislative rule of what the requirements are for citizenship.


“…, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,…”
This ellipsis, which occurs during the 1st clause, is an exception rule to the being born on U.S. soil. The exceptions were formed by Elk v. Wilkins and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Because of the irrelevance of the cases to this debate, I have opted to skip the explanation of them.


“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”
This is the privileges or immunities clause. The intention of this clause has been the subject of scrutiny. The commonly accepted belief of the intended meaning is that this states that all citizens of the U.S. are protected from the government with the Bill of Rights and the government cannot abridge this. Nevertheless, this protection is satisfied with due process.


“…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.”
Take notice of the term person used in this clause rather than citizen. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 afforded U.S. citizenship to all those born in the United States.

What the framers of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution realized is that a future session of congress could overrule the Civil Rights Act of 1866 as unconstitutional.


They decided to make the legislation of the act an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In other words, they used the term person rather than citizen because this way all people would be protected under U.S. law.

Thank you 4laugh

heart

Thank you heart

I have to wonder if when the 14th amendment was introduced if the people of the time had the same concept of personhood and sentience that others do. (I don't, I don't beleive in personhood, and i don't beleive sentience is a better way to grant protective rights.)

It is sad how many times I actually hear this argument to support abortion. Everytime I hear it I have to do a short lesson on English grammer and on history confused

Wow, good point.
Some people can justify things all day

What the ******** are you talking about. Every time I've seen you post recently you leave extremly vauge comments! WHat is bull s**t? The fact that they may be interpriting the 14th amendment wrong, or that you think a thread like this is wrong and shouldn't exist and thats its very existence is bull s**t.