Replies

There were some good follow-up letters to this exchange in the next issue of First Things. The most important point made, as I remember, is that the idea of what a person is evolves over time. And of course science has evolved over time. We now know, basically, that a fetus is alive and, of course, is human. By most definitions, an unborn baby is a person. But if Bork and the conservatives on the court don't see it that way, we have some persuading to do.

Persuasion will only come in the form of a genuine threat of impeachment or appointment of five or more genuinely pro-life judges.

SIDE NOTE - This is the second of only two articles ( the first To end all culture wars) in which my first response (post#1) mentioned ancient Cicero and you have been the first to reply to both. Once is an anomaly, two is a coincidence and should this occur in a future post - the third time would be a trend….

"The most important point made, as I remember, is that the idea of what a person is evolves over time."

The idea of what a "person" is, according to the Constitution, is fixed by the Constitution itself.

The Constitution *demands* that every "person" be counted, every decade, by a Census. The unborn have NEVER been counted in any Census. And even if that changed, that wouldn't change the meaning of the Constitution. The meaning of the Constitution was fixed when the Constitution was written.

The question of whether slaves were "persons," according to the Constitution, was addressed in the Dred Scott case. The Supreme Court back then correctly ruled that, under the Constitution, slaves weren't persons. It took the 13th and 14ht amendments to change slaves into persons.

It will take a Constitutional amendment to do the same thing for the unborn. If the federal government followed the Constitution, that is. It obviously does not!