From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@together.net>
>I'm also pro-choice, not because I don't think that the fetus is
>a living creature, I think it is, but by all international norms,
>a human being must be a citizen of either a country or a visitor
>from a UN Human Rights Treaty signatory country, or from a country
>has diplomatic relations with the country we are talking about to
>be considered to have rights. Under no national or international
>law is citizenship conferred on an individual according to the
>nation in which the individual was conceived in. They all make
>birth the condition of citizenship. Thus the unborn have no rights
>under any accepted national or international convention. Here in
>the US, under the 9th and 10th amendments, any rights not
specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights were to
>remain in the hands of the people, or in the states as delegated
>by the people.
I agree completely.
>So here, the various states can pass laws or state constitutional
>amendments which regulate abortion and remain entirely
>constitutional on all levels. It is their right to do so, and the
>right of people in the states to put such amendments up to state
>referendums.
NO!! The state has no more right to pass laws on non-citizens than does the federal government. This does not stop them however.
>If a state wishes to pass an amendment putting the rights of the
>unborn ahead of the rights of the mother, then so be it.
I disagree completely.
Brian
Member,Extropy Institute
www.extropy.org