[Blood of Tyrants]

Your whole argument relies on two very weak presumptions, first the argument that the baby is not "viable". The basis if "viable" is basically that a human must be able to breathe and have a hearbeat on their own. The logical extension of that argument is that as soon as a person is unable to feed and care for him/herself (such as a serious brain injury) or temporarily needs a ventilator in the case of an illness or injury then they are no longer "viable" and therefore have no rights under the Constitution.

The second weakness is the screwy definition of "personhood". Only by twisting the definition to say that a an unborn baby is not a person though it is undeniably both human and alive is insane.

[tpaine]

Your whole argument relies on two very weak presumptions, first the argument that the baby is not "viable". The basis if "viable" is basically that a human must be able to breathe and have a hearbeat on their own.

That is the USSC legal position.. Feel free to present a better consitutional solution. No one has to date.

The logical extension of that argument is that as soon as a person is unable to feed and care for him/herself (such as a serious brain injury) or temporarily needs a ventilator in the case of an illness or injury then they are no longer "viable" and therefore have no rights under the Constitution.

Absurd illogical conclusion. They were a legal person ~before~ the illness/injury..

The second weakness is the screwy definition of "personhood". Only by twisting the definition to say that a an unborn baby is not a person though it is undeniably both human and alive is insane.

Its a moral & legal dilemma. Find a solution.
As Cathryn has mentioned, calling your opponents on the USSC 'insane' does nothing for your cause.