Bad analogy. I don't see the connection.



OK but I didn't call the fetus a person, a child or citizen. I called it a human being, which it is. You like the word fetus because it dehumanizes the innocent human being to make it easier for you to stomach their killing. But, it is also a fetus. But what kind of fetus? What animal might it be? Oh it's a human fetus and since it is unborn it's obviously innocent of wrongdoing, so a fetus is a type of innocent human being, there are other types of innocent human beings that have been born but there are some types of innocent human beings that are unborn fetuses. So when you kill any innocent human being which includes but is not limited to fetuses, then you should use that human's perspective as your primary guidance in the decision.

At 20 weeks the fetus is moving, it has a heartbeat, it has a nervous system, a brain capable of comprehending the 5 senses, its eyes are forming, it has it's own blood, it's own DNA and you can determine it's sex at this age. After 20 weeks it at least has grown enough rights that the decision to kill it outside the exceptions of rape, incest or health of the mother ought to be made from the perspective of the killed innocent human fetus. If we didn't do this as you suggest, then this would be the only time in our society that we kill an innocent human without that human's perspective being the primary consideration guiding the decision. The overwhelming majority (like 80%) would agree with me here or to ban abortion further than this. When you are living in a pluralistic society doing something that 80% of people are against with their tax dollars is undemocratic and questionable at best. I'm not saying a fetus has all the rights that adult humans have but they still have some rights, not zero as you imply. It's not black and white but shades of grey.



The 4th Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, primarily in the context of criminal investigations and law enforcement activities and does not mention abortion or even allude to it in the slightest. There is no explicit mention of abortion in the 9th Amendment itself, which is not unusual because the 9th Amendment does not explicitly guarantee any unenumerated rights and the 9th Amendment is rarely, if ever, used as the sole basis for a court decision.

If you were talking about Dobbs decision overturning Roe V Wade, in which the Supreme Court relied on the 9th Amendment, along with the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, to establish a constitutional right to privacy and, by extension, a woman’s right to abortion before fetal viability. Well you would be against Row V Wade because it only is before the fetal viability period that allows abortion. But anyway, lets just say you did a typo and meant to type 14th instead of 4th. I'm trying to steelman your argument here to make it as strong as possible before I debunk you.

The 14th amendment also does not explicitly mention abortion either and the Dobbs decision was correct in overturning Roe V Wade (which you are still against because it doesn't go far enough for you). Alito writes in the decision that the 14th amendment’s language, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” only guarantees procedural protections against state action, not substantive rights like abortion. Alito cited the historical context of the 14th amendment’s adoption in 1868, noting that most states prohibited abortion at the time. He also emphasized that the 14th amendment’s framers did not intend to create a broad right to privacy or personal autonomy, but rather to ensure due process and equal protection under the law.

So Roe V Wade (which you disagree with because it doesn't go far enough) was overturned because nothing in the 4th, 9th, 14th or any other part of the constitution guarantees you a right to an abortion so under the 10th amendment it's left to the States. Dobbs was rightfully decided by the majority (not a few) of the Supreme Court and this decision is supported by the vast majority of legal scholars on both sides of the political isle. Despite your opinion of them being disgraceful, well that is subjective and on the other hand there are many that consider them to be wise, just and reasonable jurists.