Ere, your arguement for Personhood for without Personhood you'd have none.

Thanks to your great energy and passion directed at eliminating our access to early-stage abortion, I'm learnng lots.

But, like many others, I can't get beyond the 14th's phrase "All persons born", and the absence of the phrase, "the Unborn". As someone else here recently pointed out - abortion is still legal - so I assume better minds are still in control.

If you know of a case that addresses the unborn, let me know where to find it. Or post an abridged version.

That is the basis for the discussion marmalade. The supreme court decided roe on the basis that unborns were not human beings. Even then, in the eyes of the law, the word person and human being were synonomous. That hasn't changed. They erred when they said that unborns were not human beings and justice Blackmun put a fatal flaw in the decision when he acknowledged that if personhood is ever established roe collapses.

Personhood has been established. It is as simple as that.

Then you must have a reading dissability. It clearly states that all persons born here are citizens. Nothing more. And clearly, those who were not born here have the same right to live as those who were born here. The word born refers to citizenship, not humanity.

I have already provided it. It is encoded into US law. It is known as Laci & Conner's law and people are sitting in prison today having been charged, tried and sentenced for both murder and manslaughter for killing unborns. In this country, you can't even be charged for murder or manslaughter, much less tried and convicted unless you have killed a person. That is the unadorned fact of the matter. I don't know if establishing personhood was the goal of the first court that sentenced a man for killing an unborn. I doubt that it was because the court was known as a liberal court but establishing personhood is exactly what they did and the legal precedent has been stacking up ever since.

My arguments aren't based on what I wish, or philosophy, or religion. My argument is based on scientific fact and the law. And in this case, those are the only two things that matter. The pro choice side isn't going to be able to argue philosophy before the supreme court. They tried that when late term abortions were banned. Go to the transcripts of the case to see how receptive the court was to philosophical arguments. Hard medical science and case law resulted in the court upholding the ban and the same sort of argument is going to result in roe being overturned. In the end, the law simply has no choice but to acknowledge that one person's right to live outweighs another person's implied right to privacy.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma