No I am not. So is the scab on my lip, its DNA matches my own. A clump of cells is hardly a human being; it does not think; it does not feel; it is not conscience. It does not attain "personhood" until those attributes are present.
Roe does not address personhood at all and most certainly it does not contradict the birth threshold.
Well certainly it does. Why else would it prohibit abortions after a certain age of the child in utero?
Once again you illustrate your profound misunderstanding of Roe. Roe is not a law, it is a court ruling. It ALLOWS states to prohibit abortions after viability, but does not require that prohibition. A few states do not prohibit late-term abortions.
It still looks like you are not well versed with the Roe decision. I am still waiting for you pointing out where the court is contradicting the birth threshold
"but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother's health. Saying that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the mother's current trimester of pregnancy.." "The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion up until viability.[2] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[3]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade It seems as though YOU don't know much about Roe.
States are NOT REQUIRED to enact those limits. They may and most states have chosen to do so, but it is not mandatory.
Do you have a problem with getting frequently raped? Because I'm not sure what else you'd be alluding to here.
Actually I do and that is why you are mistaken about this. You said: you also said that then you posted the quote that states: "but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother's health." For one, there is still no reference to birth or personhood. Second, the state's interest is still up to the state and not mandated, which clearly negates your assertion that it was law. And last, the state's interest hardly amounts to anything resembling personhood.
