The document opens with an explanation of its purposes. The culminating purpose? "To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY."
So, for those in Rio Linda: The very purpose of the Constitution is to protect those who are yet to be born!
Folks who propagate what you are propagating are in a very real sense worse than Blackmun, the author of Roe. In the majority decision, even he admitted that if the unborn child in the womb is a PERSON, they are therefore protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
I'm not sure what I said that you disagree with. We may not be on the same sheet of music. But thank you for your opinion.
As a side note concerning the 14th A., I do have a problem with the USSC's application of the 14th A. in Roe v. Wade. More specifically, the 14th A. applies enumerated privileges and immunities to the states. This is evidenced by the fact that John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., referenced the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing explicit privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states; Bingham ignored the 9th Amendment when he discussed the 14th Amendment.
So the problem that I have with Roe v. Wade is that the Court used the 14th A. in conjunction with the "wild card" 9th A. to apply a non-enumerated right to the states. And it still remains that the USSC ignored the 9th A. protected rights of unborn children and the 9th A. protected right of a man to be a father.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, what a mess!
In fact, given that the New York Supreme Court was honest enough to admit New York's state constitution didn't address the issue of gay marriage and left it to New York lawmakers to resolve the issue, perhaps the USSC should have let federal lawmakers decide what to do with abortion issues.
Instead, the corrupt USSC majority essentially seized the fact that the federal Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion to legalize abortion from the bench.
Again, what a mess!