Abortion is unconstitutional under a reasonable reading of the US constitution

I am not angry. Honestly. ALL CAPS IS USED FOR EMPHASIS ONLY AND NOT TO YELL AT YOU. Thank you for coming up with a reasonable argument. You claim "Person=a human being regarded as an individual." I contest your definition. Here's two better, simpler ones from actual dictionaries: Person: "a human being." [1] Person: "a human being, whether an adult or child." [3] I suspect you skipped these in search of one that would support your arguments, the one that used the word "individual," which I will define next. Individual: "of, relating to, or existing as just one member or part of a larger group." [4] Individual: "a single human being, as distinguished from a group." [5] Even the Oxford dictionary, which you used for your definition of "person," doesn't give the definition you used for Individual: Individual: "Single; separate." [6] Let's define "distinct" too while we're at it: Distinct: "different in a way that you can see, hear, smell, feel, etc. : noticeably different." [2] All these definitions were taken from the first line of the definition; in other words, these are the 1. definitions that are generally accepted. From them we see that 'individual' generally means a single human. To add the additional prerequisite that a human must be "separate" to be a person is simply pro-choice cherry-picking. But, regardless of the current use of definitions, the only thing that really matters is what "person " meant at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Were fetuses regarded as "persons"? Here I turn to the actual text of Roe v. Wade. "Gradually, in the middle and late 19th century, the quickening distinction disappeared from the statutory law of most States and the degree of the offense and the penalties were increased. By the end of the 1950's, a large majority of the jurisdictions banned abortion, however and whenever performed, unless done to save or preserve the life of the mother." Why does the readers think a large majority of jurisdictions banned abortion? Because they considered the unborn fetus to be a person. And what did the medical world think, again drawing from the actual majority opinion: "The position of the American Medical Association. The anti-abortion mood prevalent in this country in the late 19th century was shared by the medical profession. Indeed, the attitude of the profession may have played a significant role in the enactment of stringent criminal abortion legislation during that period. An AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May, 1857. It presented its report, 12 Trans. of the Am.Med.Assn. 778 (1859), to the Twelfth Annual Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion "with a view to its general suppression." It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of "this general demoralization": "The first of these causes is a widespread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime -- a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening." "The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life. . . ." "The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, Page 410 U. S. 142 and to its life as yet denies all protection." Id. at 776. The Committee then offered, and the Association adopted, resolutions protesting "against such unwarrantable destruction of human life," calling upon state legislatures to revise their abortion laws, and requesting the cooperation of state medical societies "in pressing the subject." Id. at 28, 78. In 1871, a long and vivid report was submitted by the Committee on Criminal Abortion. It ended with the observation, "We had to deal with human life. In a matter of less importance, we could entertain no compromise. An honest judge on the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no less."" [I got these fragments from [7]. However, it is very long and you may not want to read the whole thing. But the fragments are from the majority opinion where the court examines the history of abortion.] And, as the previously quoted fragment indicates, state legislatures heeded them in enacting anti-abortion laws. Thus from both a scientific and legal position abortion was frowned upon and illegal around the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment for the very reason that the fetus was a person deserving life. What dictionaries think today does not matter. What the people and lawmakers thought back then does. Thus, your argument is invalid in attempting to impose 21st century definitions upon a 19th century Amendment. Fact is, the justices in Roe ruled wrongly. If they could see the implied right to privacy in the 14th Amendment they surely should have been able to see the not-so-hidden right to life laid out there, and they should have applied it to the fetus. 5. Revisited: "By your logic it is murder when you scratch your head or spray aerosol, because you are indeed killing cells, bacteria, and micro organisms that are living." No. You are committing the part-to-whole fallacy. The organism that you call a fetus is killed by abortion, not just its individual cells. And, as I have proved, a fetus is a person. Therefore, taking a fetus' life is equivalent to murder. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] http://dictionary.reference.com... [6] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [7] http://www.oyez.org... Thanks, Con for debating. Oh, and I AM NOT ANGRY!!!! I'M NOT, AND DON'T SAY THAT AGAIN! Just kidding.