You’re deluding yourself if you think the “pro-life” industry has been making the arguments I’m making for the last forty years.
And Romney supports the “fetal pain” legislation, even though he didn’t sign the Susan B. Anthony pledge. My comments were accurate. It’s right on his website. Go look.
You know, your real problem is that you refuse to truly face up to what the only moral, constitutional and legal arguments are against abortion. That’s why you’re having a hard time tracking.
Even the pro-abort lawyers arguing in Roe admitted that their case would fall apart if the “fetus” or child is a person. So did the pro-abort majority, in the written opinion. Everything turns on that question.
Is the child a person, or not? What say you? If you say NO, you agree with Blackmun, and I’m not sure you’re on the right website. If you say YES, the questions get really simple, really fast. Every civilized person will admit that it is immoral to murder innocents. Everyone who can read can figure out that such an injustice is blatantly unconstitutional. And if it ain’t constitutional, it ain’t legitimate, or legal.
Read the legislation yourself. Read the similar “heartbeat” legislation that is being pushed by the same crowd. Read the Texas Code, which almost a decade ago explicitly recognized the personhood of the child, and then in the next breath allows the abortionists to kill said persons. Read the 2005 “Lacey Peterson” law which was passed by a “pro-life” Congress and signed by a “pro-life” president. Again, it recognizes the personhood of the child, from its biological beginning, and then explains how you can “legally” butcher them.
If what you say is true:
"Even the pro-abort lawyers arguing in Roe admitted that their case would fall apart if the fetus or child is a person. So did the pro-abort majority, in the written opinion."
and the legislation, as you say "defines babes in the womb as persons" then by your own assertion, Roe's case should fall apart.
But you would argue that I'm missing your point, specifically that the law codifies the definition of a person, then allows those in that definition to be killed... YOUR ENTIRE POSITION "turns on that".
BUT YOU HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE the very foundation of your assertion, namely that the legislation defines ANYTHING, much less that it "allows" killing of the "persons" that it's defined.
Can you show me where in this legislation (1) ANYTHING is defined, and where or how it (2) "Allows the killing" of those defined as Persons?
Further, can you explain to me how YOUR ENTIRE POSITION on this matter does not "turn on" those two objectively verifiable issues, and why you should not be expected to offer SOMETHING in terms of documentation to back up those two, so far, absolutely baseless assertions?
Also, I would really love to hear your explanation of how a law that makes some abortions illegal, doesn't prevent any abortions.