No, I am not missing your point. Your point is that a fetus is not a person or a human therefore it has no rights. So what is it that makes us a person or alive? Cognitive thought? If being a fetus or zygote is not part of our life cycle? Then when does the LIFE cycle begin? When is a human a person or a person a human? Are you telling me that the LIFE cycle I learned in school is now somehow bass aackwards? Or is the DNA evidence obtained since Roe v Wade somehow fabricated?

[NOTE: Becareful with that, because the last time the precedent of determining what a person was, a few million people met the gas chambers. Prior to that in our own history, millions were enslaved.]

Note the Constitution does not supply us with a definition of what a person is (try finding a definition yourself, have fun..oh and good luck), part of those flaws you mentioned. But the Constitution does not permit the Court to insert definitions that cannot philosophically/legally be obtained, that would be "ex post facto" in nature, which is also unconstitutional (not that "ex post facto" has stopped Justices like Kennedy and Ginsburg). What the Constitution does allow, is for the people to establish those laws or amendments not enumerated under the Constitution (Amendment X). (If they don't then guess what? It is not a Federal or Court matter, but that leads to another Article and discussion all together.)

But deeper to your point: Are you telling me that "PRIVACY" (a non-existant Constitutional term) over-rides the right to LIFE (an existent Constitutional term)? Even if you could establish privacy under the IX Amendment (which is a load of crock and another example of the Courts overstepping their bounds), that would fall under the X Amendment as well. Then you would have to establish that the right to "PRIVACY" is greater than the right to "LIFE". That would be a huge NEGATIVE, because "DUE PROCESS" is a guaranteed right to all...even non-citizens. To take a LIFE, "habeas corpus" must take place; not even a State or the Federal Gov't can take a life without "DUE PROCESS", so how is it that a mother can do so without it?

You haven't specified to me yet of what you consider a human/person is, but you need to consider it deeply because the precedent you are trying to establish is on shakey ground. Not even Justice Blakmun, the USSC Justice that wrote the concurrence under Roe v Wade was brave enough to determine what equates to being a person...instead like you he focused on the aspect of "PRIVACY" and thus disregarded the Constitutional right of "LIFE" being disparaged without "DUE PROCESS" of the law.
-------------
A side note: The Constitution is not some living document that can be interpreted as you please from one generation to the next. It is very black and white, and it allows for cultural growth (Amendment X again..WOW!). It was intended for the people to govern the goverment, it was not created so the courts could twist it to anyway they please and govern us with.

The life cycle begins when the sperm hits the egg. What I'm saying is this: be revolutionary, it's the American way isn't it? People disregard the law when they think something needs to get done, whether it's outlawed or not. Women should have the option of healthy abortion, if that becomes illegal, many women will be in a situation that's [sometimes unbearably] hard to be in.

Should we marginalize pro-choice women who would consider abortion just for the people out there who think it's wrong?

I realize the Constitution is very black & white, and that's exactly why I believe it's so flawed, it's either wrong or it's right--and that in itself, I believe, is wrong. Life is grey area; the majority can't play God.

But hey, even if it is illegal, there's always herbal abortion. So I'll let you have this one. But, the fact is that everyone is different; arguing the Constitution becomes null & void when people realize their potential as human beings. No one is bound by laws, they're completely fictitious in a truly free world. It's called autonomy.

In response to Axiom, he is correct. From conception, the zygote, blastula, etc, up until the time of birth IS STILL A HUMAN. You really can't deny that. All that happens is that it grows as cells divide. I consider it to achive "person-hood" when the tissues begin to form and functions such as the heart and brain begin to work. As such, I do support stem-cell research (short of growing zygotes simply to harvest). I also believe that a woman should be able to choose, although not after the first trimester. However, the word "privacy" does not need to be explicitly state in the Consitution. The Founding Fathers feared a Bill of Rights because they were worried people would decide that those were people's only rights. People do have a right to privacy (even though everything we do now is monitored, more or less, by databases).

Onlyoneplanet, you believe a woman should have the choice to simply abort her child whenever she pleases? Do you support partial-birth abortion? They "partially-birth" the baby, and then snip it's spinal cord with scissors. You see nothing wrong with that? You seem more than anything to be a raving feminist by calling it a "hetero-sexist, male-dominated society". I know an overwhelmingly large number of women who are staunchly pro-life because they realize they are killing the child. You can't justify abortion by saying simply that women should have the choice, it becomes a question of convenience. Most abortions are because of "accidental" pregnancies that are inconvenient. Should Roe be overturned, the states would decide if they want it or not. I doubt even Texas would ban incest/rape/health of mother abortions. Abortion is being used birth-control, and that is not right. It has nothing to do with males dominating society (RAWR), it has to do with people wanting to protect defenseless youth. Not to mention the mental effects of regretting an abortion. Do you know how many women are pro-life that had got an abortion and regretted it?

I wouldn't support the decision for an abortion, but at the same time it's very tempting to disregard the baby's life in lieu of convenience. Would you also support genetic screening and if the genes don't match up the way you like, aborting the baby?

What is RAWR?

Just a roar or rage, but rawr rather than roar. I'm simply emphasizing the frustration at males Planet has.

Perhaps all males should disappear and let women run everything. Men are useless. I mean, hell, we can't be good fathers, right? Because of VAWA, all a woman has to do is say basically "I'm scared" and he's not allowed to see his kids, gets a huge black mark on his record, and basically can't do anything about it. VAWA is useless, now. I can't stand it when feminist groups claim 95% of domestic violence is perpetrated by men, and the 5% by women is all self-defense. It's utter BS. It's so much harder to get custody of a child if you're the father than if you're the mother. Short of the mother having some fatal addiction, the father is unlikely to get the child. Either way, he has the onus of proof.

I definately see where you are coming from.

You would be right to say that the Supreme Court ruled that a basic right to "PRIVACY" exists. However, it is not defined within the Constitution, what the IX Amendment does is to establish that the "Bill of Rights" is not a grant of rights from the gov't to the people, it establishes some of the most important powers to the people that are not granted to the gov't. Instead the USSC did exactly what the IX Amendment was intended to prevent, and that was to grant rights from the gov't to the people. The IX Amendment only emphasised the peoples power through the X Amendment. The IX Amendemnt was meant to show that Congress was a body restricted by enumerated powers. Make sense? [NOTE: You are right on with the Founding Fathers fearing to establish rights however...well stated]

In short, the issue of "PRIVACY" should have been left to the people or the States to establish said privacies, not the Courts.

But back to "PRIVACY" vs "DUE PROCESS", as established by the USSC, "PRIVACY" is NOT a right that is ALWAYS granted, however "DUE PROCESS" is a right that was intended and is to supposed to be granted at all times. Which leads me straight back to my post on page 6 of this thread.

OOP--The life cycle begins when the sperm hits the egg. What I'm saying is this: be revolutionary, it's the American way isn't it? People disregard the law when they think something needs to get done, whether it's outlawed or not. Women should have the option of healthy abortion, if that becomes illegal, many women will be in a situation that's [sometimes unbearably] hard to be in.

[Axiom] Whoa..so if I disreagrd the law and violate your rights because I need or want something that is o.k.?

OOP--Should we marginalize pro-choice women who would consider abortion just for the people out there who think it's wrong?

[Axiom] We should do the right things because they are the right things to do. What you fail to realize is that the Constitution is not so flawed as you may think...what is flawed is trying to twist it into something it is not, then it gets flawed.

OOP--I realize the Constitution is very black & white, and that's exactly why I believe it's so flawed, it's either wrong or it's right--and that in itself, I believe, is wrong. Life is grey area; the majority can't play God.

[Axiom] No life is pretty black and white, for every action there is a consequence(s). Attempting to nullify everything by placing it into some grey area will definately have a consequence.

OOP--But hey, even if it is illegal, there's always herbal abortion. So I'll let you have this one. But, the fact is that everyone is different; arguing the Constitution becomes null & void when people realize their potential as human beings. No one is bound by laws, they're completely fictitious in a truly free world. It's called autonomy.

[Axiom] No that is called anarchy. Attempting to put a pretty dress on it doesn't make it a pretty baby, it just makes it an ugly baby with a pretty dress. Save the pretty dresses for the pretty babies.

Though I would totally disagree with your evaluation on life, I do appreciate you sharing your view-points.

I wouldn't support the decision for an abortion either, I strongly encourage women to make the right decision, but the fact is that it is her decision, and I won't be one to dictate what women can or can't do with their bodies.

I don't think abortion should be used as a method of birth control, but the option to have an abortion should still be available. Women are given a good 24 hours to think about whether or not they want an abortion, a good amount of time to contemplate right and wrong. What's right and what's wrong is completely up to the individual.

Further more, I believe if a woman chooses to receive an abortion, she does it in the first few weeks while the fetus is still very underdeveloped. So no, I don't believe in partial-birth abortion.

Beautifully put sir. I just don't understand what Christians don't understand about this concept...

Do you guys (Christ Groupies) not realize that not everyone on the planet thinks that some carpenter was all that and a bag of chips?