The question, the dispute between pro-lifers and people on the abortion right side of the

equation is, does everyone who is a human being deserve the basic protection of the law

or only some people?

That's in a nutshell the difference between the pro-life position and the pro-choice position.

The pro-choice position says, and Planned Parentheses KC and Roe v. Wade say that individuals,

women, pregnant women, can decide for themselves what the moral standing of the unborn child

is.

Is it not a person?

They choose it's a person, then they can act like it's a person.

They choose it's not a person, then they can take lethal violence against it in a way

that you wouldn't be permitted to against a person.

The personhood of the unborn child as a matter of constitutional law in this country, as

interpreted by the Supreme Court, is that it is a relative value.

And they are ignoring the proposition that all human beings are created equal, which is

a normative proposition that I think includes every living member of the human family born

and unborn.

They're rejecting a deep normative good of human equality that I think is embedded in our

nation's best traditions.

One major problem for the pro-abortion movement has always been why if the Constitution

includes a legal right to abortion.

No one seemed to notice that right for the first 184 years of our nation's history.

Another sneed, Professor of Law at Notre Dame, takes a look at Roe v. Wade in the context

...