Not sure with the fuck religion has to do with the fact that a child's life begins at conception and (if we are to take the Constituion seriously) that is when their rights should begin as well. For the most partn Our fetal homicide laws already recognize that as fact, too.
Religion doesn't have shit to do with it.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where the constitution talks about life and rights beginning at conception. I know the constitution mentions birth, but I didn't realize conception was in there. Could you point me to the relevant passage(s)?
Does the Constituion say that all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. . . Or does it say only persons we can no longer find reasons to deny?
The constitution does not define persons specifically, so far as I am aware. The USSC decided that a fetus does not constitute a person under the 14th in Roe. I would guess that a fetus cannot be a natural born citizen, either, since it has not been born.
Our state and federal fetal homicide laws establish that a child in the womb is a person.....enough AT LEAST to warrant a charge of MURDER against anyone who kills one in a criminal act.
The question for the SCOTUS will be clear. How can the child be considered to be a person when a criminal even accidentally kills it but NOT a person when the mom pays some proabort to kill it intentionally?
As I've pointed out on multiple occasions, using evidence, including from the Supreme Court, there is more than one kind of legal "person."
What kind can get you a MURDER charge for killing them in a criminal act?