NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/54976

Text File | 1993-01-10 | 3.7 KB | 79 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:49:56 GMT
Lines: 68

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
> ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
>[mega snip]
>
>: Once again, Ms. Smith went and had sex without using her brain.  Murder
>: is murder.  There is no such thing as a potential citizen except in the legal
>: sense.  Morally and scientifically life begins at fertilization, and so does
>: citizenhood.
>
>This contravenes the 14th Amendment which states: "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. ..."
>Fetuses are not citizens.

Specious logic alert!!!

"X is Y" does NOT imply "non-X is non-Y". E.g. "Socrates is a man" does NOT
imply "If you're not Socrates, you're not a man".  Thus, "born people are
citizens" does NOT imply "unborn people aren't citizens". Actually, I'm not
aware of any place in the Constitution that specifies who CAN'T be considered
a citizen. So the decision is left up to the federal and state governments.

>Let's assume that the conceptum (z/e/f) is a citizen.  Then, by the Equal
>Protection clause and the Apportionment Clause of the 14th Ammendment, the
>conceptum must be counted for the purposes of representation within the House
>of Representatives.
>
>From my past readings (I don't have the books with me now, but I will find them
>in the library) I have learned that it is possible to separate the cells of the
>blastomere and produce effective twins, quadruplets, etc. (I don't remember how
>many identical siblings can be produced this way, I'll find that too).  If all
>these conceptums are citizens, then it should be possible to populate Rhode
>Island with more citizens than the rest of the country combined.

With sufficiently high skyscrapers, and a supercharged birth rate, it would
likewise be possible to populate R.I. with more BORN citizens than the rest of
country combined.

Your point?

>Similarly, the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Ammendment would require a
>change to the IRS tax code, allowing the conceptum to be used as a tax
>deduction for personal income taxes (currently, only a person who is born is
>allowed for the purposes of deductions).

Don't be ridiculous. The tax laws are ALREADY riddled with different rules
for people of different ages -- 13 (parent loses ability to claim Earned
Income Credit, if no other younger dependent exists in household), 14 (parent
loses their limited option to report child's income on their own return), 19
(cannot be claimed as a dependent, if he or she earned more than $2,299,
unless a student), 24 (cannot be claimed as a dependent AT ALL, if earned more
than $2,299), 65 (extra exemption). I'm sure there are much, much more.
Yet none of these give rise to an Equal Protection claim. Why? Because
there's a rational reason for each and every one of the age-distinctions.
Likewise, there are rational reasons for treating conceptums differently from
born citizens, for tax purposes.

                                - Kevin

UNRETRACTED LIE
---------------

"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
 himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
                    Susie Garvin
                    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
                    <[e-mail]>