C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
‘The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157.Where do the rights of a baby begin?I understand the biology just fine. The question is whether a fetus is a separate legal person, with rights that should be protected by the government.The human fetus is a human being. Take an elementary biology class. Duh.I am all for women being in control of THEIR bodies. You want a boob job, tummy tuck, butt lift, go for it. The pro-"choice" advocates pretend the fetus is an unnecessary piece of fat.And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.
And the pro-lifers pretend the fetus is a full-fledged person. More importantly, they pretend that a pregnant woman's womb is public property.
[…]
…an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.’
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
A child’s rights manifest once it is born; prior to birth, an embryo/fetus has no rights, it is not a ‘baby,’ and not entitled to Constitutional protections.