Dear justshutupandtakeit,
"The law charged Scott Peterson with the murder of TWO People so it is simply false that the life of an unborn baby is not protected."
The law charged him with the murder of two people because the baby's mother had decided that the baby was a baby, and not merely a product of conception to be terminated.
The intrinsic rights of the baby certainly are not protected. Rather, the woman's desire is protected. If she desires to call the baby a baby, then those that harm the baby may be prosecuted. If she desires to have the baby killed, then the baby will be killed.
Where is the protection of the rights of the BABY? Only the interests of the woman are protected.
"The tag is false for another reason as well; there was nothing in the federal constitution preventing abortion's legality in the States. Thus, Roe would in no way prevent States from allowing abortions and most would allow some form of abortion."
Wrong again. My tagline says that if Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.
It doesn't say that if Roe is overturned, all, some, or any unborn child will ever be protected in law.
Overturning Roe is a necessary condition to protecting unborn children in law. Unfortunately, it is not a sufficient condition.
It will only be the beginning.
sitetest
A zygote isn't a "baby". It is the law which made that determination in Conner's case not his mother.