Try this link, it goes along with my discussion here. It is strictly from a Constitutional stance, as my argument has been.

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onp...stripling.html

I will admit that I only skimmed your article, but I did not need to continue reading it for one reason, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and all these good things, only apply to people, full blown human beings, something a fetus is not...

Then as I challenged OOP, I challenge you...define "person". And, if you cannot adequately define it (no one has, but good luck anyway) then as I said before..."Due Process" is established to "err on the safe side" the Court should have and must eventually do the same.

Easy... One you emerge from your mothers Vagina, ALIVE, you are a person...

That would illegalize thousands of abortions alone. So killing a mother and her baby near full term would only constitute one crime and not a second?

From a legal aspect:

Criteria for personhood
The above points seem to indicate that there may be persons that are not human, and there may be humans that are not persons. For these reasons, many philosophers have tried to give a more precise definition, focusing on some trait or traits that all persons, real and hypothetical, must possess.

The most obvious such trait that persons typically possess is a conscious mind, typically (but not necessarily) with plans, goals, desires, hopes, fears, and so on. Yet the claim that such a mind is necessary for personhood is also problematic, as most would consider human babies as persons, yet their minds do not seem sufficiently advanced to satisfy this condition. A few philosophers have simply accepted that babies are not persons. However, most have not. Instead, some have suggested that the potential for such a mind is the correct trait.

Yet another view is that personhood is not all-or-nothing: there can be degrees of personhood, based on how close to a fully working mind the object in question has. Thus, a typical adult is entirely a person, while a human permanently in a coma is not a person at all. This view also seems to have some unpleasant consequences, for example, that a young child or someone with a moderate mental handicap might be, say, only half a person (and perhaps therefore have only half the rights, or be regarded as half as important). Jean Vanier, who has spent most of his life working and living with people with learning disabilities, has suggested that the capacity to be loved is what makes a true person.

It is probably true to say that other views also exist, and that the debate is not close to being resolved.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Person

Well then you missed the points concerning LIFE and DUE PROCESS, your choice.

The point is that as long as the life is completely dependant on the woman it is her right to cut off it's support, she has no requirement to make any sacrifice to sustain an organism she does not wish to support. Once the life form is out and on it's own, it has rights.

And I have argued opposite your point...I disagree with you. A newborn is still dependent upon an outside source for life, then the mother may dispose of a newborn?...your argument is full of holes, I could sit here and do this all day with you.

I am approaching this from a legal and Constitutional aspect. I am not throwing personal bias into this argument at all. For all intents and puposes I could personally agree with you (not likely), but my point remains that the Constitution is devoid of such descriptions and it allows for "Due Process" to LIFE. By Constitutional standards, that LIFE must alloted these processes...if you were to change this then it must be done by Constitutional Amendment...thus the link I provided above, had you read it and not glanced through it.

My ultimate point is that we are not or should not be goverened by a panel of nine. We the people are supposed to establish how we are governed and that we govern ourselves. That is the intent of the Constitution...and that is part of my point in this discussion.

That's EXACTLY why Roe should be overturned. There's no reason for a federal law saying that all states must accept abortion. Keep it as local as possible (I'd prefer each city vote on their own abortion laws, but that's damn near impossible to happen). If the population of that state decides that they want to restrict abortion, let them. That's why they elect people. Having judges decide these laws and what's correct and incorrect goes completely against the grain of why the judiciary exists, which is to check on the other branches of government, NOT create it's own laws. Jefferson(?) was worried sh*tless that the courts having the power to declare laws unconstitutional would mean they'd strike down laws left and right.

While that definitely hasn't happened, I'd prefer the reps I elect choose the laws for my area, not a panel of 9. Being pro-choice, I'd obviously vote for someone that shares my views. Hispeed would vote for the person he sees as pro-life. Too many federal regulations.

I fail to see the logic in creating a situation where women will have to travel around the nation to receive care. Great logic