bbking said:
A person who would post that comment doesn't understand the legal principles behind Roe. That decission was not about a fetus being human or not it was about the privacy rights of a women. For Roe to be overturned, the Constructionists (those who believe the Constitution is a set document and not an evolving one) would have to dismattle every privacy right ruled on over the last 200 years - you really want that especially in a day and age that we are very vulnerable to privacy issues.
bbk
Not exactly. The privacy clause, which doesn't explicitly appear in the US Constitution, does
not rely on 200 years of history. It began in 1928's Olmstead v. United States, but Roe's true parent was 1965's Griswold v. Connecticut.
Your contention that the issue doesn't involve humanity of the fetus is also incorrect. The Court is very careful not to get involved in the matter, HOWEVER in 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey the court did rule the state has a "compelling interest" once viability has been determined and CAN regulate abortion from the point (as long as it doesn't place undue burned on the mother).
In most US states a woman cannot get an aboriton past 24 weeks unless there is a serious health issue for the woman involved.
If the privacy right of the woman was as sacred as you claim then the court could not have recoginzed compelling interest of the state after viability.
Its a sticky legal issue, but not nearly as black and white as you've tried to make it out to be...
