you consider the human fetus to be a thing and we consider it to be a person.

I suppose it’s just a matter of personal interpretation. Let’s leave it to the voters, mmkay?

And as Rob pointed out most vigorously is that the so-called transition of a fetus from a thing to a person is arbitrary

So rather than drawing the line at which we grant personhood in a difficult place, we should draw it in an obviously wrong one (conception). Is this what you’re saying?

If you believe the Constitution contains a magical “fetal right to life”, then you would also oppose allowing the states to vote on it, unless you honestly believe that individual states should have the option of directly violating the Constitution.

Except, in order to believe that unborn children don’t have Constitutional rights you have to believe that unborn children aren’t people.

Which is an absurd definition, as I’ve already pointed out.

So rather than drawing the line at which we grant personhood in a difficult place, we should draw it in an obviously wrong one (conception). Is this what you’re saying?

That line have been already drawn by the heads of Catholic church at Vatican II where a person exists from conception to natural death.

Frankly I would like to see this come to a vote.  Then you would see that most people believe the same as Vatican II not supporting the death culture you represents.

If you believe the Constitution contains a magical “fetal right to life”, then you would also oppose allowing the states to vote on it, unless you honestly believe that individual states should have the option of directly violating the Constitution.

Dave,

I would agree with just about all of your constitutional analysis, except for the paragraph I’ve quoted above.

You posit that the “right to life” of a fetus is separate and legally distinct from that of the rest of us.  I do not subscribe to that distinction, nor can I find reference or allusion to any such distinction in my copy of the Constitution.

While I regard abortion as morally reprehensible, it is clearly NOT a question to be decided universally by the US Supreme Court.  Instead, the only constitutionally permissible solution is for each of the separate states’ legislatures to craft their own regulations reflecting the will of the people in each state.

There are plenty of other areas in which state codes, laws, and regulations differ from oone state to another.  Taxation, business incorporation and regulation, driving, education funding, criminal and civil codes and procedures, even the structures of state legislatures varies from one state to another.  There is no reason for the question of abortion to be treated any differently.

Instead, the only constitutionally permissible solution is for each of the separate states’ legislatures to craft their own regulations reflecting the will of the people in each state.

bat. that was the case before Wade as most states had laws that regulated abortions.  Unfortunately all these laws became invalid after the Wade decision.

Instead, the only constitutionally permissible solution is for each of the separate states’ legislatures to craft their own regulations reflecting the will of the people in each state.

Agreed. This is true because the Constitution neither specifically allows nor specifically prohibits abortion. If it did either, we could not allow the states to make a decision on it, because states cannot pass unconstitutional laws.

If you believe that fetuses are protected by the 14th amendment (IOW, you are privy to exclusive knowledge that our Founding Fathers specifically wanted the 5th Amendment to protect human embryos), you cannot simultaneously say you want the issue of abortion to be decided by the State legislatures (because you’re saying that the Constitution forbids abortion, and states can’t defy the Constitution).

Is this how you feel?

Dave is right in that if we pro-lifers define the unborn child as a person (and we all do as that’s the only correct definition) then the states cannot legally decide the abortion issue.  The unborn children would have 5th amendment protections.

Except, in order to believe that unborn children don’t have Constitutional rights you have to believe that unborn children aren’t people.

Of course they aren’t.

Rob, do you know the differences between persons and humans? Or are you so delusional as to think the two terms are identical?

More importantly than what you or I think “person” means is what the Founding Fathers thought. Unless you know that they wanted fetuses to have Dur Process rights, you’re just interpreting...you’re no different from the guys on the other side of the aisle who just “know” that the “liberty” provision of the 14th Amendment means the “liberty” to have an abortion.

Bat One...I suppose it would take a “mental moron” who believes that a human fetus is unquestionably alive but is not unquestionably a person.

Rob...I don’t believe that a human fetus is a child which explains why I don’t accept your argument. I agree that the starting point is arbitrary and I have arbitrarily selected the time of birth as the significant determinant because it is at that point that the new human need not necessarily depend on its mother for its survival.

Dave is right in that if we pro-lifers define the unborn child as a person (and we all do as that’s the only correct definition) then the states cannot legally decide the abortion issue.  The unborn children would have 5th amendment protections.

Then you have absolutely no desire in letting the people vote on this issue. You want to let 9 unelected and unaccountable old men decide an extremely contentious issue for the entire country.

This, of course, directly contradicts almost everything you’ve ever written on this blog about abortion. Like here:

Roe vs. Wade ruled that it was unconstitutional for states to pass laws making abortions illegal.  Basically, Roe denied the states the ability to decide the abortion issue for themselves.

I think all states should have that ability back.  Roe shouldn’t be overturned so that all abortions will be made illegal.  Roe should be overturned so that the people in every state of this union have the right to do what South Dakota did tonight.