Yah, here is one such nut that wants to "take the law back", and the school district kicked his ass out. Good riddance!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/20/teacher.cross/index.html

Keep producing nuts like this will only help us liberal globalists demonstrate who is truly out of control.

Gee, if gay marriage decisions are supposed to mobilize a conservative backlash, I would expect right-to-life amendments to inspire a liberal backlash. Not that I really expect either, just saying.

For the record (once again), I think Roe v. Wade is wrong on constitutionality, but this points to a big hole in the constitution; namely, it lacks a legal definition for 'personhood'. For those of you on either side who can step aside from your emotional caterwauling for five seconds, this should be obvious. Of course, what such a definition should be would be (and is) subject to great debate, but at least it would be the correct debate. The idea that states should individually define what constitutes a person is absurd and disturbing.

But, of course, if their definition aligns with your pet beliefs (and you're a fucking moron), then you should be jumping for joy. Most opponents of Roe v. Wade are as unconcerned with constitutionality and notions of state's rights as its supporters; arguments are just blather to further their highly particular agenda and beliefs rather than to establish rules and traditions that we can all live by. I don't take the law as gospel any more than I take the gospel as gospel, but I think it is important, and should be well-crafted.

Some Fellas,

Going state by state to get such laws passed is just an attempt by conservative crackpots to get a hearing in the US Supreme Court (in a favorable climate), so they can overturn the prior decision. And the voters in the states who help pass these laws are merely pawns in the game.

Funny I was watching Anton Scalia the other day on Charlie Rose, and he was spout off about the activist judges bit that is a hallmark of conservatives these days. His point was these guys (the liberal judges) shouldn't be deciding things that are not covered by the constitution. But something tells me that if he had the chance to break a 4/4 tie on abortion, he'd all of a sudden discover his activist side....rather than stick to his supposed position of strict interpretation of the constitution.

"Gee, if gay marriage decisions are supposed to mobilize a conservative backlash, I would expect right-to-life amendments to inspire a liberal backlash. Not that I really expect either, just saying."

Actually, there already is one. In Montana, Planned Parenthood activists have been actively campaigning against putting the issue on the ballot. Seems an odd position--"no, you can't ask THAT question!" Of course, there probably won't be a national backlash, because Montana pro-choicers sure don't want any other states getting this bright idea.

"For the record (once again), I think Roe v. Wade is wrong on constitutionality, but this points to a big hole in the constitution; namely, it lacks a legal definition for 'personhood'."

And these states are attempting to fill that vacuum.

"Of course, what such a definition should be would be (and is) subject to great debate, but at least it would be the correct debate."

Which is exactly what the passage of a Human Life Amendment by both houses of Congress would begin--and, yet, you just finished (oh, wait--are we done yet?) claiming that it's CONSERVATIVES who want to amend the Constitution, which I thought you were saying was (for lack of a better word) bad.

"The idea that states should individually define what constitutes a person is absurd and disturbing."

Why? Why is it any more disturbing for a state to make that decision than for the federal government to do it? The federal government, under current law, already makes that decision in the negative--there are no constitutional rights conferred on a child until it is born. Effectively, the Court has declared that life begins at birth.

"I don't take the law as gospel any more than I take the gospel as gospel, but I think it is important, and should be well-crafted."

What, exactly, DO you "take as gospel?" (And, pray tell, what could that curious phrase possibly mean to you?)

"Going state by state to get such laws passed is just an attempt by conservative crackpots to get a hearing in the US Supreme Court (in a favorable climate), so they can overturn the prior decision. And the voters in the states who help pass these laws are merely pawns in the game."

Why, exactly, would it be a bad idea to take the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution seriously? Are they just there as filler? What did the framers have in mind when they tacked those on to the apparently perfect eight?

And, if they wanted a "favorable court," they would have waited a few years to see if we can get another conservative on the Court. As it is now, it's a liberal court--but only by one vote. One different vote would turn that on its head.

"Funny I was watching Anton Scalia the other day on Charlie Rose, and he was spout off about the activist judges bit that is a hallmark of conservatives these days."

Oh, catch up. That's been a hallmark of conservatism since the Warren Court. (Of course, we didn't have Charlie Rose back then, so I can't expect you to know anything about jucidial history.)

"His point was these guys (the liberal judges) shouldn't be deciding things that are not covered by the constitution."

Bingo.

"But something tells me that if he had the chance to break a 4/4 tie on abortion, he'd all of a sudden discover his activist side....rather than stick to his supposed position of strict interpretation of the constitution."

It's not activist to enforce the two amendments to the Constitution that reserve those powers to the states and the people. And I'm sure you will disagree when California's gay marriage ruling comes before the Court, being as how it conflicts with other states' marriage laws and federal law, as well.

Why? Why is it any more disturbing for a state to make that decision than for the federal government to do it?

Think about it for ten seconds. All of the rights of the constitution protect people. But the constitution doesn't define what a "person" is. In other words, if states defined this individually, then they would be determining exactly who is protected by federal law, and who is not, and it will vary on a per state basis. I can't put it any more plainly than this.

Which is not to say that there is zero definition of personhood in the constitution. Rather, a very vague one is implicitly defined, and it is good enough for most cases. For instance, the constitution makes it obvious that you can't define black people as non-persons. But the fetus is the ultimate edge case, and the constitution's implication (or "penumbra") is clearly insufficient.

If this doesn't make sense to you by this point, there's nothing I can do for you, here.

What, exactly, DO you "take as gospel?" (And, pray tell, what could that curious phrase possibly mean to you?)

Oh, gimme a break.

I mean, "pray tell"? How affected can your writing get? Try to imagine yourself as others see you.

"All of the rights of the constitution protect people."

Actually, you have this backwards. The PEOPLE have established the Constitution. The Constitution per se delineates the roles of the three branches of government. The Bill of Rights makes explicit those things the government is NOT allowed to do. "The rights of the Constitution" don't "protect the people." The pre-existent inalienable rights of the people are DESCRIBED by the Constitution.

"But the constitution doesn't define what a "person" is."

And, since it doesn't, the Constittution implies that such a definition is a right of the people, or of the states.

"In other words, if states defined this individually, then they would be determining exactly who is protected by federal law, and who is not, and it will vary on a per state basis. I can't put it any more plainly than this."

That's why the Court is going to have to get involved. If the state cannot make a determination, because the states don't agree, then the Supreme Court has to make the determination.

"Which is not to say that there is zero definition of personhood in the constitution."

There is, in fact, "zero" definition of personhood in the Constitution.

"Rather, a very vague one is implicitly defined, and it is good enough for most cases."

Why don't you tell us what that is? There is a demarcation between a citizen and a "person," but where, PRAY TELL, does the definition of "person" appear?

"For instance, the constitution makes it obvious that you can't define black people as non-persons. "

Well, NOW it does. Originally, it did not, and the American courts continued to define them that way until (and, honestly, long after) three amendments were passed to the Constitution to change it.

That does not mean they were not truly "persons," in the sense that there is an absolute truth by which they were. But many of us believe that there is an absolute truth by which the unborn are persons, as well--and it is only the moral retardation of our society (as was the case with slavery) that allows us to continue denying it.

Kerry,

Scalia also made the ridiculous argument that the Military knows better than Judges who is and is not a terrorist is, and therefore shouldn't be involved in the process. We all know that is ridicious, because then cops could make the same argument that they know better who a criminal is. Who gives a crap about evidence or anything else. Just get rid of judges altogher.

Basic point, if Scalia doesn't understand the point of having a neutral party running a legal proceedings, he's not only a moron, but a dangerous moron. Especially since he professes to believe that the most important part of the constitution is its "separation-of-powers" framework.

Oh my. After all this time, I see that Ahman is still a "moron". Some Fella seems to take issue with Kerry's extensive and intelligent use of the English language. Why should she imagine herself as "others" see her? Do you? Nothing has changed here, Kerry is still the smart one and the rest of you are, well, just as you were.

Lisa,

And as usual you are nothing more than a cheerleader with nothing to say.

The pre-existent inalienable rights of the people are DESCRIBED by the Constitution.

Well, that's a nice opinion to have, but I think it's naive and silly, and it represents a pointless distraction from the topic. But if you think you can actually prove this (I mean proof in a scientific sense, not a biblical one), then by all means, please post a separate topic on it.

And, since it doesn't, the Constittution implies that such a definition is a right of the people, or of the states.

Wow, brilliance incarnate. Yes, by definition, anything that the Constitution does not deal with is left to the states. That speaks to NOTHING about whether or not a particular issue SHOULD be handled on the federal or state level. Are you not understanding the part where I say this is not a good thing in the case of this issue? Or is it that you don't understand why? All you have done is explain the way things are, which we already know.

That's why the Court is going to have to get involved. If the state cannot make a determination, because the states don't agree, then the Supreme Court has to make the determination.

Uh...no. The Supreme Court gets involved when the constitutionality of a law is in question, not when the states disagree on things. States routinely disagree on all kinds of things, and nobody makes a federal case out of it.

Why don't you tell us what that is?

It's clear to me that you're violently opposed to understanding anything that I type. I just stated in the next sentence how the 14th amendment establishes that black people are people. So, do you understand how definitions work? This helps to DEFINE personhood. I didn't say there is a complete and precise definition -- in fact, I said quite the opposite. However, it is clear from reading the constitution that, say, CITIZENS are people.

The definition is vague, incomplete, and insufficient. What the fuck are you actually arguing about? You think it's just fine, and each state should be left to define personhood for itself? Or would you rather that the Supreme Court resolve inconsistencies between states, in a grand show of judicial activism? Or are you just disagreeing with me because its a deeply ingrained habit?

But many of us believe that there is an absolute truth by which the unborn are persons, as well--and it is only the moral retardation of our society (as was the case with slavery) that allows us to continue denying it.

Thanks for letting me know, I never would have guessed. So, if that's true, it sounds like we're talking about, oh, I dunno, a universal, unalienable right. You know, something that ought to be in the constitution. I happen to disagree with your definition of personhood, but I would think one thing we could both agree on is that it should be defined one way or another in the motherfucking constitution. So are we on the same page? If not, please tell me exactly why you think we ought not to define personhood in the constitution, ya nitwit.

I AM A MORAN!!1

Shut up, Lisa...it's spelled "moron". Clean-up in isle six.

"And as usual you are nothing more than a cheerleader with nothing to say."

It has been my experience that a cheerleader with nothing to say is usually kicked off the squad quickly.

""The pre-existent inalienable rights of the people are DESCRIBED by the Constitution.""

"Well, that's a nice opinion to have, but I think it's naive and silly, and it represents a pointless distraction from the topic."

Actually, it's the "opinion" of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. I rather guess they knew what they meant.

""And, since it doesn't, the Constittution implies that such a definition is a right of the people, or of the states.""

"Wow, brilliance incarnate. Yes, by definition, anything that the Constitution does not deal with is left to the states. That speaks to NOTHING about whether or not a particular issue SHOULD be handled on the federal or state level."

Actually, it does. It says that those things not mentioned in the Constitution SHOULD NOT be handled at the Federal level.

"Are you not understanding the part where I say this is not a good thing in the case of this issue? Or is it that you don't understand why? All you have done is explain the way things are, which we already know."

Evidently "we" don't, since you got it exactly wrong.

""That's why the Court is going to have to get involved. If the state cannot make a determination, because the states don't agree, then the Supreme Court has to make the determination.""

"Uh...no. The Supreme Court gets involved when the constitutionality of a law is in question, not when the states disagree on things. States routinely disagree on all kinds of things, and nobody makes a federal case out of it."

Uh, no. If two states have conflicting laws that are implicated in a federal problem (such as the full faith and credit clause, or interstate transport), the Court has to determine which one complies with the Federal Constitution.

"It's clear to me that you're violently opposed to understanding anything that I type."

No, I'm just opposed to the content.

"I just stated in the next sentence how the 14th amendment establishes that black people are people."

Urk. You didn't really SAY that, did you? The 14th amendment ESTABLISHES that black people are PEOPLE? That implies that they were NOT people before then. Is that really your position?

"So, do you understand how definitions work? This helps to DEFINE personhood."

No, it doesn't. Show me WHERE the Constitution defines, in any way, personhood.

"The definition is vague, incomplete, and insufficient."

Also, non-existent. Find me the citation that defines, in ANY WAY, personhood.

""But many of us believe that there is an absolute truth by which the unborn are persons, as well--and it is only the moral retardation of our society (as was the case with slavery) that allows us to continue denying it.""

"Thanks for letting me know, I never would have guessed. So, if that's true, it sounds like we're talking about, oh, I dunno, a universal, unalienable right."

As in the "right to life." Gee, that sounds familiar. Wonder where that quote comes from.

"You know, something that ought to be in the constitution."

Why? The Constitution only addresses HOW the GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS. It does NOT detail what "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" exactly consist of. It merely explains how the government designed to protect them is supposed to operate. The Bill of Rights adds to that specific things that the government absolutely can not do.

"I happen to disagree with your definition of personhood, but I would think one thing we could both agree on is that it should be defined one way or another in the [unnecessary immature adjectival expletive deleted] constitution."

No, not necessarily. It isn't there now, is it? Are you saying that the Constitution is deficient in some way? If so, why are YOU the one objecting to an amendment on this issue?

"So are we on the same page?"

No, we are not.

"If not, please tell me exactly why you think we ought not to define personhood in the constitution."

That entirely depends on how you wish to use the concept. If you wish to extend federal rights to such a one, then defining "person" would be an appropriate step. However, if you are talking about defining "person" in order to punish someone for depriving it of life, that is a state crime, and it is the state's right to define what constitutes murder in that state.

"I AM A MORAN!!1

Shut up, Lisa...it's spelled "moron". Clean-up in isle six."

I must be missing something, because I totally do not understand this. Lisa did not misspell "moron." And I am assuming you are making some sort of joke by misspelling "aisle."

Maybe you just had to be there. (Where were you, Lisa? I must have missed a party.)

Lisa,

Welcome back. You've been gone too long.

Did you bring fresh horses?

Wow, Kerry, you just wrote a whole lotta stupid. I don't know where to begin, so this time, I won't. Seriously, re-read your stuff, it's totally retarded. Every single one of your statements in that last comment was dumb. I'm not just saying this to be mean; it's the sad truth. But what do I gain by tearing it apart, line-by-line? I get to write a very long post that you are incapable of absorbing. I've already made my point, and you responded with a series of miscontruals, non-sequitors and, well, some things that were just plain stupid (no other word suffices). I wish I could feel sorry for you, but I'm just frustrated that people like you exist and screw up this planet.

That's always the liberals' answer to an argument they can't defeat:

"You're just.....STUPID!!!"

And let's not forget the liberal answer of just getting rid of the other side. Like a Dalek--"EX..TER...MI...NATE, EX...TER...MIN...ATE!"

Exemplified here: "I wish I could feel sorry for you, but I'm just frustrated that people like you exist and screw up this planet."

I can easily defeat your argument (I already have), but like I said, why should I waste my time? The funny part about your incoherent disagreement is that if a conservative proposed to you that personhood should be defined in the constitution to include fetuses, you would fall all over yourself to agree. You're a knee-jerk conservative who has lost the capacity to think. You know I could go on and on, picking apart your broken logic. I've done it so many times. Do you really think that this is the first time I'm stumped? Please, don't flatter yourself!

The fact is that your statements are stupid. That's just the facts; it's happening, it's happened, and I'm just telling you. And if you've deluded yourself into thinking that I'd like to see you killed, then your conservative self-victimization cycle is complete. Please apply for your aggrieved white christian membership card, you're due. Go nail yourself to a cross somewhere. I have contempt for your weak mind, but I am broad-minded enough that I can even tolerate living among fools.

"I can easily defeat your argument "

No, evidently you can't.

"(I already have),"

No, you haven't.

"but like I said, why should I waste my time?"

To win the argument.

"The funny part about your incoherent disagreement is that if a conservative proposed to you that personhood should be defined in the constitution to include fetuses, you would fall all over yourself to agree."

I thought I made that clear. If your intent is to define fetuses INTO the federal constitution (which I would have no problem with), that would be the right measure. But if all you want to do is protect their lives against murder, the federal constitution is the wrong place to start. Now, YOU said that we should agree that personhood SHOULD be defined in the Constitution. I don't object to it, but I don't think it's necessary--and I certainly wouldn't assert that it SHOULD be in there.

And you still haven't produced a constitutional citation defining personhood in ANY way.

"You're a knee-jerk conservative who has lost the capacity to think."

No, I'm not.

"You know I could go on and on,"

Which you do.

"picking apart your broken logic."

Which you don't.

"I've done it so many times."

No, you haven't. All you've done is insult your opponents and claim that your *position* is right; you don't provide an *argument* to back that up.

"Do you really think that this is the first time I'm stumped?"

No, I think it's a fairly common event.

"The fact is that your statements are stupid."

Ah, yes. That again. Another brilliant liberal legal argument.

"I have contempt for your weak mind, but I am broad-minded enough that I can even tolerate living among fools."

And here we have another form of liberal "argument." Assert the stupidity of your opponent and pat yourself on the back for being so gracious as to allow them to live.

You make this SOOOOO easy.

Hey Kerry! Yes, I have been too busy to post here. Thought perhaps with your insights some people would have seen the light, but no such luck. Same old tired libs.

Lisa,

Thank you for commenting! You are always very insightful and consistantly manage to bring a fresh, new perspective to the conversation!

Thank you so much!! :) :) :) :)

To win the argument.

In whose eyes, Kerry? How many arguments are "won" here on PME? If you mean in my own eyes, then I've already won. If you mean in YOUR eyes, then why would I bother? You've made it obvious that you're a knee-jerk, and you NEVER EVER concede an argument. You'll concede that you're wrong about facts when it is shown conclusively, but I've never ever ever seen you admit you've lost a point. So why would I try for such an impossible payoff?

And why would you? When was the last time that I conceded one of your arguments? If your reason for coming here is to achieve such concessions, then there's something masochistic about you.

But if I've made my argument and you respond with a whole lot of nonsequitors and absurdities, then why should I bother? Let's say, for purely hypothetical purposes, that this is exactly what happened. What would you recommend I do? I see you do the same thing constantly...that's my perception. Should I keep trying to persuade you with logic, when I don't believe that this is possible (no matter how logical I am)? So that's where I am, and if you put yourself in my shoes, you can understand why I consider arguing with you to be nearly worthless. It's only fun to kick you around for a while; after I've made it clear to any reasonable third party that your arguments are inadequate and silly, I just don't see the point of going further.

And before you bend yourself into a pretzel to explain how this is "typical liberal patronizing" or something dumb like that, I'd like to point out that there is nothing partisan about this. It's just a simple fact that I perceive you as a moron (as you no doubt perceive certain other people, perhaps me), and that's that. Sometimes, other people are idiots, and we realize this. I know you think I must be some kind of contemptuous marxist to feel that way about you, but if it makes you feel better, chalk it up to a cognitive error.

And here we have another form of liberal "argument." Assert the stupidity of your opponent and pat yourself on the back for being so gracious as to allow them to live.

Here's a perfect example of your nonsequitor. My statement was not an argument at all. It was a response to your hysterical presumption that I would have you exterminated. Now that I have explained how this is not true, you'd rather change the subject than acknowledge your initial foolishness.

The fact of the matter is that this position (not an argument) that you describe is actually the position of pretty much all reasonable people in a modern civil society. It's your own damn position! You think that people who disagree with you are wrong, sometimes ludicrously, and yet you tolerate their existence, and would not kill them if you were able (right?) As for the "patting on the back" characterization, nothing I said would suggest I feel particularly high-minded about this.

I think this is a good example of why I don't bother arguing with you. I had to spend more than three time the number of words you used in your statement to refute it. Given that you never accept anyone else's logic, these debates swell to ridiculous proportions, even when quibbling over tiny points. Is this worth my time? Is it worth yours? The answer is "no" (that's an opinion, for the context-impaired)

"I think this is a good example of why I don't bother arguing with you."

Of course you don't.

"I had to spend more than three time the number of words you used in your statement to refute it."

And, yet, you still failed to do so.

And, yet, you still failed to do so.

I disagree, you just had your ass handed to you hardcore.

And, yet, you still failed to do so.

I can tell that when you get like this, you're a bit flummoxed. When you think you can refute something, you go on for pages. When you can't, it's assert-and-run. See ya later.

But on your way out, I just noticed this dingleberry:

And you still haven't produced a constitutional citation defining personhood in ANY way.

You fucking moron. I already said it's IMPLICIT, and the fourteenth amendment is an example of part of the constitution that contributes to a VAGUE, IMPLICIT definition of personhood. How many times did I say this? How is a person so lacking in understanding able to use such big words? You really are pathetic. If you don't agree, then fine (and go stuff yourself), but I produced the goddamn "citation" already. Do you want me to quote the 14th amendment? You want a link? Google it, dumbass.

I thought I made that clear. If your intent is to define fetuses INTO the federal constitution (which I would have no problem with), that would be the right measure. But if all you want to do is protect their lives against murder, the federal constitution is the wrong place to start.

You made it clear that you are arguing that in this case, but my point (which you missed, big fucking surprise) is that you are INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, and like a typical knee-jerk, you will argue against whatever the other side says. From reading your tortured explanation above, it's 100% clear to me that you didn't 100% understand what I was asserting from the beginning. And you wonder why I don't bother?

Hey Kerry! Yes, I have been too busy to post here, what with carnival season in full swing.

Lisa, it's clear you're just the trolling alias of someone else. Nobody is as dumb as you pretend to be, and still capable of tool-use. Are you actually Kerry? That would be oh-so funny/sad. I hope it's true.

The funny thing (and I'm pretty much just talking to myself here; I don't expect substantive replies) is that overturning Roe v. Wade without defining a fetus as a person in the constitution would achieve the results that I would prefer. That would essentially be the whole federal "laboratory of democracy", where every state could go its own way.

The reason that I oppose it, however, is because that just isn't sensible. If you're extending various rights and such to people, you ought to define "people". It's just that simple. Of course, if the constitutional definition excluded fetuses, but states were free to outlaw abortion, I'd be right with that, too.

Of course, you (Kerry) wouldn't be happy with either of these scenarios, would you? It's murder, right? Correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but I imagine that someone who viewed abortion as murder would want it to be illegal everywhere. So, overturning Roe v. Wade would not be enough, if some (most) states permitted abortion.

And what then? You're options are pretty much federal law, or the constitution. Or, if you live in a fantasy world, you could expect that once Roe is overturned, that all states would outlaw abortion. Or maybe I'm just wrong and you're fine with New York and California becoming the new capitals of the American abortion industry. In Tennessee, everyone will know what you mean when you say young Sarah "took a little trip to LaGuardia."

Because, as you know, middle and upper class girls are more likely to seek abortions. Taking a little flight will not be an excessive inconvenience. Besides, even if it was only the girls in Santa Barbara nipping their buds in the bud, you wouldn't like that, would you? It would be like it was OK for slavery to continue only in Alabama. From where you're standing, of course.

We already have laws and traditions against murder, and murder is precisely what you think abortion is. So why not "leverage" that? Define a fetus as a person, and it becomes illegal to kill one everywhere. And you think it is a person, right? So that would be consistent with your flawed notion of reality.

Of course, you could go the federal law route. That would achieve the results you want...until someone comes along and redefines personhood. I'm glad you think that the bill of rights (part of the constitution, duh) confers pre-existent, inalienable rights, but you don't think a person's status as a person is inalienable. Well, that makes no fucking sense, but I wouldn't expect that to stop you.

I know you'd like to spend all day arguing that I was wrong about the constitution having a vague and implicit definition of personhood. Well, I've explained what I meant by that, and I think it's self-evident, but if you want to disagree, then fine: the constitution has no notion of personhood whatsoever.

What you fail to realize, hip deep in your partisan knee-jerkiness, is that this was a minor concession to you, and the absence of a definition is what I'm complaining about! So if there is no definition whatsoever, it only strengthens my claim that such a thing is lacking! Are you now starting to realize why I consider you to be a worthless debater? From the very start, this was intended as a qualifying statement, as in, yeah I know there's a shadow of a definition. Go back and read my original statement, and it will be clear as day.

In essence, you've spent a lot of time arguing against a point that I made a little bit in favor of the opposing view, which is a pretty minor point in any case. If you don't believe me, like I said, go back and read. It will be so fucking obvious.

Hell, I'll save you the trouble:

Which is not to say that there is zero definition of personhood in the constitution. Rather, a very vague one is implicitly defined, and it is good enough for most cases. For instance, the constitution makes it obvious that you can't define black people as non-persons. But the fetus is the ultimate edge case, and the constitution's implication (or "penumbra") is clearly insufficient.

Anyway, if you want to keep arguing that point, go ahead. I still stand by what I said! That's how silly I think you are: you're trying to make a point that isn't in your favor, and I still think you're wrong. It's like stopping you from slapping yourself. Now, do you understand how dumb you look, why I think you are barely worthy of a reasoned response?

But the central question behind abortion has always been and will always be whether or not the fetus is a person. Where should we attempt to answer this question? There is only one natural place, silly silly fool.

Let me fully put the spotlight on your absurdity here, Kerry. You're saying that a citizen's right to refrain from self-incrimination is a pre-constitutional inalienable right that the constitution is merely describing. However, you don't think that the personhood of a fetus is inalienable and pre-constitutional? Which is more fundamental? And what is the most fundamental legal document in our country? Take all fucking day. Shit, take forever and stay stumped, for all I care.

There, you won: you goaded me into demolishing your arguments with logic. Happy?