the basis that our fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe [is what will likely result in the SCOTUS revisiting Roe.]
You're probably correct on that.
I think so too. . . but it's odd how few other pro-lifers and other anti-aborts have picked up on the same thing.
Do you know offhand whether pro-lifers have pushed for Congress to initiate the Constitutional Amendment process to settle the matter once and for all?
Yes. I have watched as several such personhood amendments have been proposed in states like Ohio, Mississippi (I think) and Colorado. So far, none have been passed. However, those efforts will likely continue until one of them does pass and then it will go to the Supreme Court that way.
the chances that the SCOTUS will be compelled to hear those arguments will only climb
Off Topic:
Can the SCOTUS be compelled to hear arguments? I don't think it can.
I think you mis-understand the context of what I meant by "compelled."
Our Supreme Court decides for themself what cases they will hear. What it is that actually "compels" them to do so is probably unique to every case they decide to hear.
That depends on what you mean by "achieve." Constitutionally, it will achieve the goals of pro-lifers and anti-abortion minded folks of gaining the equal rights and Constitutional protections of children in the womb.
Legally, that would enable our State and Federal governments to make or to revise their laws accordingly. ....
I was "pro-abortion" myself before ever becoming "anti-abortion." I can argue all sides of the issue very easily.....
I think Elvis Obama meant "achieve" in the absolute sense of "outcome" rather than in one of the qualified -- such as "intended outcome" or "unintended outcome" -- senses of the term.
Knowing that you've been on both sides of the issue and you thus know the matter very well, perhaps better than most or all of the "regular" commentators in this forum, I'm surprised you address only the few plausible and probable outcomes you did. I wonder whether that was due to time limitations or rhetorical strategy?
I gave a short and generalized answer to a short and fairly non specific question. I see no benefit to my position to load the cannons of those who obviously might intend to turn them against me.
(I'm pretty certain it wasn't because others didn't cross your mind.) I "get" the reasons for both, I'm just curious.
Like I said, I can't foresee the future and I don't see any reason for speculation.
More important than that - I don't see any alternatives. If a child in the womb is a human being and a person (as I clearly believe they are) then they are entitled to the same Constitutional rights and protections that anyone else is entitled to... Regardless of the unforeseen or undersired consequences of their recognition MIGHT be.
We do not agree that that is a compelling argument for the legalization of anything
As goes what Elvis Obama cited as the compelling argument, is it really even an argument. It seems to me to merely be a fact, although I understand how that fact can be used to make an argument. Just wondering whether you see it as a fact too and thereby don't see it as a compelling argument for anything?[/quote]
That's very confusing. . . but I think I just answered what you are trying to 'get at' - above.
Is your remark driven by something that basic? I suspect it's not and that you've duly evaluated the arguments accruing from/using that fact, but I have to ask as I don't know. (Better to ask than to guess when it comes to others' remarks, especially others whom one believes to be well informed and strong analysts.)
Like I said. . . if the child in the womb is a person, there is no alternative but to respect their Constitutional rights accordingly. So, any arguments based on the down side of recognizing their right is a Red Herring/ Non Sequitur/ Non Starter.