The following is from an on-line exchange I had with two persons. The last part deals with any claim some might advance that US citizens have a "right" to kill illegal aliens.
Opening
I posted this comment, the first sentence of which appeared in a news article:
QUOTE:
"A ballot measure to grant fertilized eggs the same legal rights as human beings..." The rights of human beings aren't addressed in our Constitution. However, the rights of citizens are, per Section 1 of the 14th amendment: "...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..."
No state can make a law asserting the rights of the unborn (who are not yet citizens - being unborn - and therefore having no Constitutional rights) over the rights of a citizen (a woman who chooses to preserve her liberty by asserting control over her property - that is, her body - by having an abortion). The rights of a citizen must always trump those of a non-citizen. The only way a fertilized egg can challenge the rights of a citizen would be by means of an amendment to the US Constitution - not by means of a state ballot initiative.
:UNQUOTE.
Two Responses
One commenter observed:
"Why if corporations are persons, than surely fertilized eggs must be too!
To which I responded:
"You're missing the point. Corporations may have been granted personage status by a sadly mistaken High Court. But not even that Court actually declared Corporations to be citizens."
Another commenter responded:
"That's pretty lame. How about if a "citizen" murders an illegal alien? Would the citizen's right to liberty trump the illegal alien's right to life? Yeah... I don't think you really spent much time thinking this through did you?"
To which I responded:
QUOTE:
I will address your point, but first I'll address a much stronger point you could have raised instead: Does a woman's right to an abortion extend to the day before the unborn (that is, one who is not yet a citizen) is about to be born? Considering only the arguments I've made so far, the answer must be “yes, she could abort the day before.”
However, we have something called the Ninth Amendment, which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” One of these so-called non-enumerated rights, which I dub “the right to reasonable expectation,” must be a right of the people (collectively) to expect that such an innocent be allowed to live. Even though my arguments, taken to their logical conclusion, would allow a woman to kill her just-about-to-be-born child, most of “the people” would be horrified at such an action. Their “reasonable expectation” is that society – which they comprise – couldn't morally (that is, “morally” in a broad, generic sense that includes the sensibilities of atheists and non-Christians alike) – could not possibly condone such a killing.
We-the-people would think, “She had all this time to make a decision and waits till the last minute? That's just plain cold.” And this argument has everything to do with the idea that a person who waits too long to do something they'd normally have a right to do should not be allowed to execute their plan simply because they “sat on their rights too long.”
As for your (weaker) argument: like the preceding, we have another case of rights/powers in conflict. I suppose one of these days the murder of an illegal alien by a citizen (which you didn't have to enquote as “citizen”) will be defended with an argument similar to the one you suggest. However, a good counterargument would be that allowing citizens to murder illegal aliens would encroach on the President's power to conduct foreign policy. Only the President, in conjunction with the Congress, gets to decide how to deal with illegal aliens – not unelected citizens acting on their own as vigilantes.
Actually, I've spent a great deal of time thinking this through, but you did a service to all of us by bringing up a good point. And for that I thank you.
:UNQUOTE.
Follow up
I want to address a point the second commenter made, which I failed to address at first: "Would the citizen's right to liberty trump the illegal alien's right to life?"
I object to the idea that illegal aliens have infringed on our liberty at all. In fact, their presence in the USA has done much to enhance that liberty. Certainly their cheap, exploited labor has helped our economy. Some might argue, they've taken jobs away from citizens. But for the most part, those were jobs that citizens were loathe to do. To which I would add: "If you, as a citizen and native speaker of English (and possessing the educational advantages this country has to offer), couldn't compete for a job against someone without those advantages whose English isn't as good as yours, I don't have a lot of sympathy."
The greater argument, in terms of our liberty: If the USA hadn't turned a blind eye - for decades - to the flood of illegals crossing the border, Mexico might be a socialist state today. And our liberty might have found itself threatened by that state - imagine a Venezuela-type state run by a Chavez-type leader so close to home. Those millions of illegals being here (with many of them sending money to relatives back home) might have become so desperate had they been forced to remain in Mexico, that they could well have revolted against their government. And sometimes such revolutions aren't to our liking, in terms of the ideologies and personalities that end up in power.
In other words, our hands-off approach to illegals served as a pressure valve to let off steam south of the border.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment