gregg jackson, author of Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies: Issue by Issue Responses to the Most Common Claims of the Left from A to Z, posted this on punditreview.com almost a year ago, but i just found it.

i tried to post a comment, but i'm not sure it went up, so here it is:

the proper argument is not about when life begins but about the meaning of the word "person."

the rights in the 14th amendment's due process and equal protection clauses, which you call "unambiguously clear," belong only to a person, which is defined in law as an entity having legal responsibility.

if it were "unambiguously clear" that an embryo or fetus is a person under the law, we wouldn't be discussing this.

there is no "constitutionally inalienable right to life." maybe you're thinking of the declaration of independence, which indeed may be the best source for a clear definition of "person" if we take "men" to mean "persons."

the definition i would propose: that which is endowed with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

since an embryo or fetus, tho alive, has no liberty and doesn't pursue anything, the conclusion is obvious.

but this isn't really about that, is it? it's about taking away women's liberty, making them obey their male lords and masters, and going back to that old-time patriarchal religion.

right?