[wagglebee]

[ I had thought that Ron Paul was pro-life. Was I wrong about that? ]

He is but he wants the states to decide for themselves cause that is what the constitution prescribes

Ron Paul has NEVER been pro-life; at best he is "personally opposed" to abortion, but pro-choice-by-state.

Either the baby being killed is a person or it isn't. If the baby is a person, his or her rights are protected under the Constitution. If the baby is not a person, what EXACTLY is it? Is there some evidence that it might turn out to be a giraffe or something?

The Constitution DOES NOT give each state the power to decide who is and isn't a person, any false notion of that is nullified by the 14th Amendment. The personhood-by-state experiment has already been tried once before in America and the result nearly destroyed the Republic.

[Aliska]

I am torn now. I would argue the Constitution right to life, liberty happiness that sould apply to unborn as well as born.

Even if it went back to the states which is won't, only a few states would manage to ban it now. I was a teenager when it started, and women used to have to go abroad. Then New York legalized it.