Either fetuses are or are not persons. Since the Constitution is currently not clear on this, it should be made so.
I see no reason for a "person" to cease being so by moving (or being moved) from one state to the next.
We're not talking about whether or not certain actions are allowed by the Constitution in the case of abortion. We are talking about who is to be protected by the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't clearly say "who" they are talking about. However, historically we can be certain that they meant to include fetuses in the definition of person. This should be made clear by a simply worded amendment.
Wrong question. The Constitution prohibits the government, whether federal (5th Amendment) or state (14th Amendment) from depriving a "person" of life (or property) without due process. But a murder (or theft) committed by a private person against another private person does not violate the constitution; murder is only a state-law crime. Many states permit killings (as self-defense) which would be murder in other states (see, for example, the wide differences among states as to whether or not you can legally kill an unarmed thief).
Person IS well defined. It's a live, born human being.
Since the Constitution is a law which applies to all people in the U.S., then the term "person" should be determined at the national level.
It IS already defined at the national level. "Person" is a live, born human being. The Constitution requires that the Census count ALL "persons." The Census has NEVER counted fetuses or embryos, and has NEVER counted corpses.
What I think YOU'RE saying, is that you want "person" to be REDEFINED. To do that, you'll need a constitutional amendment.
Either fetuses are or are not persons. Since the Constitution is currently not clear on this, it should be made so.
The Constitution IS clear on this. Fetuses and embryos are NOT persons. If they were, the Census would count them. Like I wrote above, you seem to want to REDEFINE "person." (Let me take a wild guess, and guess that you want to redefine fetuses...and possibly embryos...as "persons.")
I see no reason for a "person" to cease being so by moving (or being moved) from one state to the next.
The main reason to NOT redefine fetuses, embryos--or dead people!--as "persons," except through a Constitutional amemdment, is that we are SUPPOSED to be a nation governed by the Rule of Law, rather than the Rule of Men. To have the federal government redefine fetuses, embryos, or dead people as "persons" by legislation would be violating The Law. The Supreme Law of the Land, to be specific.
Even beyond that, I don't think that any person who is true to the spirit of the Founding Fathers could ever support a Constitutional Amendment to make ANY form of abortion a FEDERAL crime. (A person who is true to the spirit of the radical Republicans of the Civil War era could support such an amendment, however.)
The Founders would absolutely NOT have made abortion a FEDERAL crime, because the ONLY federal crimes recognized by the Constitution are crimes against the United States (or crimes that occur outside the United States). The only federal crimes recognized by the Constitution are treason, counterfeiting, piracy, and crimes against the Law of Nations (e.g. counterfeiting ANOTHER country's currency).
There is NO federal crime of murder, under the Constitution. And the Founding Fathers certainly never would have supported including such a crime in the Constitution. (But the radical Republicans of the Civil War era would have.)
We're not talking about whether or not certain actions are allowed by the Constitution in the case of abortion. We are talking about who is to be protected by the Constitution.
That seems to be two ways of saying the same thing. If a constitutional amendment criminalizing abortion is passed, then fetuses and/or embryos would be "protected"...while abortion would not be an allowable action.
The Constitution doesn't clearly say "who" they are talking about. However, historically we can be certain that they meant to include fetuses in the definition of person.
No, absolutely not. Beyond any shadow of a doubt we know that "they" (the Founding Fathers, and all those that followed them for more than 150 years) meant to EXCLUDE fetuses from being "persons." If they had meant to INCLUDE fetuses in the definition of "person" pregnant women would have been counted as TWO persons in all of the Censuses.
Scalia is right on this issue. There is NO "right to choose" in the Constitution...but there is also NO "right to life" for the UNBORN in the Constitution.
I wonder very much whether Scalia would actually vote this way, if a FEDERAL law against partial birth abortion is passed, and challenged in the Supreme Court. My guess is that he would NOT hold such a law to be unconstitutional, even though it unquestionably WOULD be. That's why I don't have much respect for Mr. Scalia (or anyone that has held a position in the Supreme Court in the latter half of the 20th century).