[tpaine]

We can both agree that a woman carrying an embryo is a human being, correct? We disagree on when an embryo is constitutionally a human being, correct? Thus, in the Constitutional view, -- the woman has "equal protection'. -- You must prove that an embryo is a human being with equal rights to its mother.

Our Constitution defines who is 'legally;' a human being, and afforded equal protection of the law. - It says [read the 14th] you must 'born' [defined as being capable of being born]. - Viable. --- Embryos are not yet 'viable'.

Your statement that the word "born" has anything to do with "capable of being born" is nowhere in the Constitution. The definition of "born" is not that elastic.

The USSC was using common sense. At some point an embryo/fetus becomes a functional person, "viable", -- with equal rights to its mother.

The mere fact that you reach so far as to twist your thinking around this "definition" should tell you that you know that you are lying to yourself.

I don't lie about our Constitution. -- Don't need to, as its intent is clear. Our individual liberties are to be protected.

The onus is on you to justify your discrimination between one member of the species and another, not the other way around.

You want to 'discriminate' against a woman from the moment of conception, and have government place her unviable embryo's supposed 'rights' over her own, -- not me.

[hocndoc]

I am not saying that the amendment is wrong about the definition of "born": I am saying that you are wrong that the word "born" implies "being capable of being born." There is no evidence in fact that this is the definition of "born," or has ever been the definition. You need to back that up with references as there is no evidence that such an "intent" (as you call it) was held in 1865-66 by Congress or the States which ratified the 14th. The USSC had nothing to do with writing the 14th Amendment.

When two people have the equal right to life - actually the negative right not to be killed - there is no disparity: neither has more rights and equal protection of each right to life does not place one over the other. That is the definition of "equal." There is no discrimination.

You introduce the idea that inalienable rights are aquired by viability or function which is not even in the R v W decision. R v W asserts *the States'* interests in the protection of the child, based on the faulty logic that no one knew when life begins, when, indeed, it was and is known:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1150807/posts?page=95#95
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=53&BISKIT=2920801063

The onus is still on you to defend your discrimination between one member of the species and another.