It doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe. It matters what the USSC says the Constitution says. And there is absolutely zero Constitutional jurisprudence that I am aware of that recognizes a person prior to birth.
There are MANY state laws that do so.
But, from what I can discern you would oppose a candidate that would appoint judges that would overturn Roe on 10th Amendment grounds because they would not appoint judges that would overturn Roe on 14th Amendment grounds as they could apply to an unborn child...even though there is no precedent for same.
I call that cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Hmmm...I could have sworn that Article VI requires every officer of government, in every branch, at every level of governance, to support the Constitution of the United States.
Oh yeah, it does!
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..." -- Article VI, the United States Constitution
The idea that an officer of government has no responsibility to interpret the meaning of his own oath, and to act accordingly, is preposterous.
The judicial supremacist fallacy that you and others are pushing here, and that Sarah Palin supports as well, is the death of representative republican self-government. There are no checks and balances in such a system.
Sorry, living under a judicial oligarchy wasn't part of the deal.