And no living human born has the rights the unborn would have if abortion was banned. That was the point of Roe, and why abortion is the minimum force until artificial incubation chambers (or something) are a reality. Fetal homicide laws don't actually change anything with Roe and abortion. Kind of like 1st degree murder versus self defense.
You keep beating this drum without saying what right we would grant that is not granted the born. The right to only be killed to save someone else? Everyone has that right. The right to have someone feed and nourish you, even if their body is the only means of doing so? We give that right to infants, and indeed, all children. What right exactly would be granted that is above what we give the born?
Personally this I find a highly incongruous dichotomy of the sanctity of life pro-lifers proclaim yet allow abortion ("it's murder"). Basically the circumstances of conception trump this so called "right to life".
The emotional burden on the mother, the absence of risk assumption, and the psychological toll a rape reminder would be all contribute to the equation. And yes, in certain circumstances the right to life is trumped, just like every single right. No right is absolute.
And no, I don't believe "most pro-lifers" believe this. In fact I'd say most pro-lifers are against abortion from rape, at least those that stand by their "it's murder" mantra.
Your belief is quite simply
wrong.
Err no, the zygote/embryo or fetus never had a "right to life". No one had or has (at the expense of someone else - which is what Roe was about). Abortion wasn't murder in the U.S. even when it was illegal.
Roe granting fetal viability as the point at which states can choose to restrict elective abortions does not prove a "right to life" considering it is not only at death's door that a woman can have a late abortion. There are many situations where her health may not be in jeopardy if she carried to term, but she can still get an abortion (fetal defects).
You're trying to covertly slip into a different contention, that a right to life was not granted in
Roe, which is correct (although a "state interest" (read: right) in protecting "prenatal life" (read:life) was used in the balancing test, as I mentioned). But your original contention, which you repeated oft, was simply wrong:
1. Roe V Wade makes no ruling regarding the "human status" of the embryo.
2. Just like add that even though some may argue against your point, "human and alive" isn't what Roe v Wade is about so I don't see it being overturned using any of those points.
3. Roe has nothing to do with the "human status" of the unborn.
1. Roe does make a ruling on the "human status" (read
ersonhood):
Roe claims it's not a person, and if it were, its right to life would certainly be protected.
2. Roe could be overturned on the arguments that it's "human and alive" (read:a person).
3. And as is already obvious,
Roe does have a whole bunch to do with the "human status" (read
ersonhood) of the unborn. From
Roe:
Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute, and is subject to some limitations; and that, at some point, the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.
...
A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
[Further discussion of personhood under the 14th Amendment, which the Court decides does not include prenatal life: "All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."]
This conclusion, however, does not of itself fully answer the contentions raised by Texas, and we pass on to other considerations.
B. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. ... As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that, at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly [Read: balancing test].
...
...We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."
In short, 1. the unborn's personhood (or lack thereof) was very central to the decision, 2. the decision could very well be overturned on arguments that the unborn do have personhood, and 3. even after claiming the unborn are not persons, the Court acknowledged a "potentiality of human life" which grows, against which the woman's right to privacy must be balanced.
I mean, I think
Roe was a bad decision, and I certainly don't mistake what's in
Roe as being representative of what
should be. But if you're going to make claims about what's in
Roe, they should at least be accurate.
