Chuckles D
New member
Abortion is protected as a matter of privacy. But the Court left open the possibility that at some point in the future, society could come together as to when "life begins."
It seems to me that even a "clump of cells" is no less human than I am. It looks like the Court used a "person hood" argument, where as regardless if fetuses are humans, they are not "persons" protected by the Constitution. Even post viability, an unborn baby is still not a "person" or "citizen."
Is it fair to say that legally speaking, it doesn't matter when life begins for the purpose of protecting the right to abortion?
It seems to me that even a "clump of cells" is no less human than I am. It looks like the Court used a "person hood" argument, where as regardless if fetuses are humans, they are not "persons" protected by the Constitution. Even post viability, an unborn baby is still not a "person" or "citizen."
Is it fair to say that legally speaking, it doesn't matter when life begins for the purpose of protecting the right to abortion?