Apparently, it's all a matter of time:
“In the eyes of the law…the slave is not a person.”
Virginia Supreme Court decision, 1858
“An indian is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of the constitution.”
George Canfield
American Law Review, 1881
“The statutory word ‘person’ did not in these circumstances include women.”
British Voting Rights case, 1909
“The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews…as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.”
German Supremem Court decision, 1936
“The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights.”
Canadian Supreme Court
Winnipeg Child and Services Case, 1997
SOMETIMES THE MOST IMPORTANT LESSONS TAKE THE LONGEST TO LEARN.
That's good to know. So we can expect you folks to eventually come around to that whole biological evolution thing one of these days, then? I'm happy to hear that since, to be honest, I'd kind of given up on you. But now I can be optimistic again.
Apparently, even dumbassitude has a shelf life.
DEEP AFTERTHOUGHT: On second thought, given that it's been 2,000 years and you folks still believe in an invisible sky monster, maybe I'm not going to hold my breath anytime soon.
4 comments:
Keep holding your breath, CC.
Remember Dr. Roy? http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2007/01/hillary-clintons-candidacyviolation-of.html According to Torry/Dorry, Hillary could not constitutionally run for president of the Unitd States because she was "femme covert" when Bill was president, or words to that effect. In other words, a married woman is not a "person" in Torry/Dorry's infertile mind.
Be virtuous, CC.
A chimpanzee is not considered a person under the law... although I'm sure conservatives would like to follow their own reasoning. Or what point would they be making? A monkey has more humanity than a single fertilized cell, doesn't it? (ooops, I mean he or she)
Since all the other examples are of conservative judges oppressing people, maybe the point of the post is that only liberals can tell the difference between humans and not humans?
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/070504/K050415AU.html
I like the commenter who went anti-choice after she had kids. It's like she's saying "I got my privilege, so screw you all!"
Typical conservative mindset.
Even better when conserva-trolls actually attack somebody for chosing life, and make it part of their repetorie of attack.
Exactly like some conserva-bloggers did with respect my being a birthmother.
Then again....You find a decent Conservative who is pro-life, like for example Kevin Michael Grace who was incensed at pro-lifers attacking a birthmother FOR choosing life.
Look - I am pro-life in the sense that I believe fetuses who could live outside of their mother (who are viable) should not be killed. However, I don't think government should be involved in the issue at all. So I'm not sure what that makes me.
Prior to the point of viabilit, when it is physically impossible for the baby to survive without his mother.. then it's a matter of biological reality, that the fetus requires her allowing the fetus to remain alive.
Personally I would not have an abortion again (I had one almost 10 years ago) and I feel more regret about that decision than I did about the adoption.
But I'd never take that decision out of individual human being's hands and place it in the power of some government flunky.
Post a Comment