Replies

I think I finally see why you keep raising the false connection between human being and constitutional definitions:

In your insistence that abortion -- [or killing an embryo], is murder, YOU raise the 'personhood' legal question.

your obsession regarding the defense of abortion on demand prevents you from comprehending

My only 'obsession' is in defending our Constitution.

the 'other vagaries' of the human dilemma; science can and is conceiving individual human beings outside of a woman's body and now implanting these alive embryonic beings into artificial womb environs. If the embryos are completely disenfranchised, then the fate of these alive individual human beings is completely discretionary for the holders of these beings and their demise is completely arbitrary based on the utilitarian purposes of the holders at any age in the gestational process.

Embryos are not yet persons/human beings.

If the embryonic individuals are however perceived as human beings worthy of protection, your ardent assertions

Big 'if', -- and, -- I am not "ardent". You are the one nearly out of control here again.

as to the complete disenfranchisement of womb bound (in a woman's body) alive individual human beings in favor of only the woman's rights regarding her bodily integrity (though the alive unborn are their not by any effort on their part and except in cases of rape, there at the invitation of the woman) begins to collapse upon its own mis-characterizations of the ones being disenfranchised so that they may be dealt with by the serial killing abortionists.

I've made no mis-characterizations. -- Calm yourself.

You asserted, "In your insistence that abortion -- [or killing an embryo], is murder, YOU raise the 'personhood' legal question." I have made no such assertion that I'm aware of, so this too is a mis-characterization. And you will notice that I do not rely on comments from other posters to try and sway thread readers, so your smarmy advice to 'calm' is absurd on the face of it. Your prattle and incessant repetition of strawman specters, on the other hand, is taking on more and more the appearance of hysteria, so you can have the thread to yourself now ... unless you can succeed in finding someone to feed your ego. Have a nice Sunday afternoon.

You need to re-read the R v W decision and Casey. The point on which abortion rests is the *State's interest,* not the necessarily the age of the unborn child. R v W is poorly presented and poor logic and law, but the later arguments support what later SC's believed were the defendable elements, particularly the conundrum/penundrum of privacy of a woman in contrast to the State's interest in the unborn.