Correct. According to Justice Scalia, "He dismissed the idea that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, but he also said the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit abortions, either. He indicated the issue ultimately should be decided by a constitutional amendment."
An umbilical cord can not be a chain by which the mother involuntarily serves the child.
Again though, if the child is capable of independent life, the mother can not be allowed to kill it, born or unborn.
What you are saying, in essence, is that a crime is committed only when the victim's life is independent from the aggressor's. Applying your logic, therefore, I would have total protection under the Constitution to kill the handicapped, the physically and mentally impaired, the old, the infirm, the comatose, and any other individual whose life depends on me. After all, "I'm being protected" by the Constitution as you indicate in your post #175, "not to be chain by which I involuntarily would serve some one else." Thus, I could purposeful kill by act or omission of a dependent human being for my alleged benefit --not to be a slave--
You forget that life starts at conception and that killing someone, because his/her life isn't independent from mine, violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency. The inevitable result of this trend would be to escalate from killing for my alleged benefit --not to be a slave-- to killing for the convenience of others. So we, the independent ones could improve the quality of our lives, not by mutually ennobling acts of care and assistance, but by exterminating those who fall below some arbitrary standard.
No. No. No. and you know it ain't so.
Let's take a 99 year old man whose spleen is failing. He desperately needs platelets and there are some candidates that match his blood type. In your world view, the State could order someone to be brought into the hospital, slapped on a table, and an intravenous tube connected from him to transfer some of his platelets into the 99 year old man.
That's where we get, if we extend your logic.
You have to realize that independent life is the only kind of life that doesn't infringe on someone elses rights.
Dependent life, as a blastocyst is, must have a host. Most hosts are willing to be such, but they can not be made to be hosts by the state, in a free society.
The blood tube is the equivalent of the umbilical cord, which you say must remain attached to the mother until the child doesn't need it. I say the mother can't be forced to accept that, and that if the child can't live on its own, it's not murder. Just as it's not murder if the 99 year old man can't live on his own.