You are illustrating wonderfully the WISDOM OF SCALIA. Scalia made it clear that the rule of law has a firm foundation only through reading the Constitution what is really there, and consider the meaning of those who wrote it.
Here you are, twisting the term 'seizure'. The baby 'seizes' the mother? Excuse me, but a tiny fetus barely has limbs to seize anything. As you noted, this fetus is the most powerless thing possible, wholly dependent on the mother. The pregnancy is a perfectly natural process and more a symbiosis than anything else, and the 'state' has nothing to do with it. Calling this state of dependency a 'seizure' just so it fits your argument is dreadfully poor logic and bad use of English.
The original intent of the 4th amendment had to do with the experience of colonists who had their property seized and searches without warrants by british soldiers. the closest analogy today is what Israel is doing in Palestinian camps to root out terrorists. It's not even remotely close to the abortion situation.
Twisting the Constitution to 'mean' something that wasnt originally intended has many negative and dangerous consequences: First, it undermines the rule of law, since the 'law' is not longer what is actually written or intended, but is possible constructible from the whims of a judge with enough creative imagination. This is a TERRIBLE blow to our REAL FREEDOMS; if they can invent rights, they can also invent excuse to TAKE AWAY RIGHTS. Second, it undermines democracy, since now laws are changed not by legislatures, but by judges; we see how is has harmed the creation of possibly reasonable abortion policies by tying them to an incorrect and fraudulent constitutional opinion. Third - and we are seeing it now - because laws can be 'changed' by changing judges, the courts become politicized. The borking of Charles Pickering over his pro-life views is part of the bargain.
In reality, legislatures should be deciding the balance between maternal rights, medical issues, and the unbrons right-to-life. Or if we make it a constitutional issue, make it explicit. As Scalia said, the consitution has neither a right to abortion no an explicit right to life for the preborn.
Read "The Tempting of America" by Robert Bork, a great intro to Constitutional Law issue for the layman.
A person is a human being. The unborn are human beings. I don't see much wiggle room there. If they meant citizens, they would have said citizens.
However, I agree that Congress should make it clear that the unborn are persons re, the constitution. At the March for Life, President Bush expressed that same opinion.
That's right, and because the Constitution is silent, it's up to the states to decide when life begins. The Roe v. Wade ruling is therefore a violation of the Constitution.
The only philosophy to have, consistent with the Constitution, is to say that life begins at independence: when it doesn't need another's body to sustain itself. I'm not reading anything into the IVth amendment but what it says. That's exactly Scalia's doctrine. - don't twist it by talking about this or that original intent. It says what it says and ought not be twisted. People have a right to be secure in their persons.. against unreasonable searches and seizures. Perhaps you think it's reasonable for a rapist to seize the body of another person, and impregnate it with his germ, and have the state assist that rapist's germ in coming to term, by insuring the contination of the seizure.
I don't.
Size doesn't matter. It's a seizure. A cancer starts out microscopically, and has no limbs at all. If the attachment is so small, why worry about its continuation, any more than its termination? It means a great deal, this attachment. Deep down, you realize that it does, because you don't want me to say that a State has a right to decide that it can be detached.
There are no degrees of seizure here. It's either seized or not. Size does not matter. It is indeed a seizure, by one person, of another's body, and it has profound effects on the elder's body.