Re: Defining Human - pt. 2

Michael Lorrey (
Mon, 09 Mar 1998 21:08:00 -0500

Reilly Jones wrote a rather detailed denoument of selected comments he wished
to take exception with, including my own:

> Michael Lorrey wrote 3/6/98: <The Declaration of Independence states that
> 'men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among
> these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. Whether you regard
> your 'creator' as god, nature, or merely your parents (which one?) seems to
> be irrelevant, but the D of I is not looked upon by the Supreme Court in
> the same manner as the USC.>
> The D of I is America's Articles of Incorporation, the Constitution is
> merely its By-Laws. The By-Laws have no meaning without organic reference
> to the Articles of Incorporation. When the Supreme Court makes decisions
> that are cut free from the D of I, it is acting as a law unto itself with
> no legitimacy at all, simply brute force *if* it can get the executive and
> legislative branches to acquiesce.

Sorry, the Declaration of Independece is more of a Divorce Writ, not a marriage
license. It defined why we no longer were members of the British Empire. It
made no mention of the United States of America (indeed, for that political
entity was not to exist for another 16+ years thereafter, and was actually a
succeeding organization to the Congress under the Articles of Confederation.),
so it has very little in relation to the Constitution other than sharing the
same author.

> ML: <That the 'right to choose' is not mentioned is irrelevant, as it is
> implied that it belongs to the people, unless they delegate it to the state
> (which is where state laws can be used to outlaw abortion, and where Roe v.
> Wade was an improper decision, in that it presumed federal authority to
> restrict state rights which the poeple had previously delegated to them).>
> You are correct about it being an improper decision and why it was
> improper. You are incorrect that there is any 'right to choose to murder
> an unborn child'. Prior to Roe v. Wade, it was unthinkable. Roe v. Wade
> stepped in and redefined human in a most barbaric way for convenience's or
> expediency's sake. The Justices deemed consequence-free sex to be an
> equivalent value to the freedom to murder the weak.

Unfortunately, you have repeatedly refused to point blank come up with any
refutation of my statement that fetuses have no rights. You claim that "'right
to choose to murder an unborn child', Prior to Roe vs. Wade, it was
unthinkable". You are right that it was unthinkable, but not for the reason you
specify. Fetuses were not considered 'unborn children' until recently, so of
course what you said was unthought-of. Why? Because if they were considered
unborn children, then we would have records of nations where citizenship was
recognized as beginning at conception. I have challenged you to come up with
jut ONE national entity which recognised citizenship, and the rights protecting
the same, as beginning at conception. You have avoided this challenge
repeatedly. Come up with one example or concede the point. Stop being a
selective debater, sniping from the shadows. Step up and take the challenge.

Since no such provision is given in our own Constitution, then you must concede
that given the present Constitution, that fetuses have no rights in the USA,
other than any State Constitutional guarrantees which may exist, on a state by
state basis, as a result of state populations delegating their 'right to
choose', or by passing State Constitutional Amendments recognising residency at
conception. That no state has an Office of Conception Registration, so as to
register the fetal conceptions in that jurisdiction, indicates that no state
has yet recognised fetal rights as a matter of residency.

   Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------ Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?