Replies

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Wrong. The Fourteenth amendment says nothing about abortion, it does not sanction it, nor does it prohibit it. It expressly states that only people born or naturalized fall under its protection, and last time I checked, the unborn were not yet born. People who argue otherwise are as much judicial activists as the Roe court was.

The rape exception is a red herring, does not benefit the victim, and renders any attempt to overturn Roe futile in light of the above.

Rape is not a red herring, because people like yourself will always seek to outlaw abortions in cases of rape. It was definitely not a red herring in my discussion with Maeve, who blasted Islamic states for being too permissive on the issue of abortion, because they allowed abortions to safe the life of the mother.

Just what the Pharisees did - letter of the law, rather than its spirit. Just what Chris Dodd is doing now with his shakedown of bankers, too. No intellectually honest person would posit that the founding fathers, being of a people that fled England to practice religion freely, would have sanctioned something repugnant to the Word of the Creator referenced in the Bill of Rights (see Ps. 51; Ex. 20; Prov. 24:11). It would not have fit with the character of that people at that time, and can in no wise be considered part of the original intent. Moreover, because of their character they had no perceived need for abortion. Why would you therefore be surprised that there is no mention of it?

I would like you to demonstrate the exact "poof!" moment, a nanosecond before which the.... entity (can't call it a person now, can we) is a just a blob of tissue, and after which "it" is a human being. Is it three months, thirteen days, five hours, and 47 seconds? Is it when the child can read? OR is it simply at the beginning of the smooth dynamic development process that begins at the completion of the process of conception? Which is more rational, and which smacks of legalism - the imposition of artificial stairsteps for the sake of sanctioning brutality and making us feel good about it?