You’re being ambagious. Your circuitous reasoning doesn’t quite hold up and here’s where/why…
You wrote “”murder” is a legal judgment, as opposed to an act. For good or ill, the Constitution only protects “persons,” and at common law, the status of personhood was only granted at birth (and as someone correctly pointed out in citing Lord Coke, English law drew a clear distinction in penalties between causing the death of a fetus and a live person).”
No doubt/argument, murder IS a legal judgment but laws are not set in stone they change and more than this GODS laws are above and distinct from mans. Just because something has been ruled “legal or Constitutional” by the Supreme Court that doesn’t mean it actually IS. Furthermore when referring to legality or your assertion that the Constitution only protects persons after birth please consider the following….
“First, and most importantly, the outcome of Roe is fundamentally harmful and unjust. Why? The facts of biology show that the human embryo or fetus (the being whose life is ended in abortion) is a distinct and living human organism at the earliest stages of development. This was established long before 1973, though subsequent scientific and technological advances have greatly improved our knowledge of life before birth. As Dr. Horatio R. Storer explained in a book published in 1866, “Physicians have now arrived at the unanimous opinion that the foetus in utero is alive from the very moment of conception.”
Justice requires that the law protect the equal dignity and basic rights of every member of the human family—irrespective of age, size, stage of development, condition of dependency, and the desires and decisions of others. This principle of human equality, affirmed in the Declaration of Independence and the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the moral crux of western civilization. But the Roe Court ruled, to the contrary, that a particular class of innocent human beings (the unborn) must be excluded from the protection of the law and allowed to be dismembered and killed at the discretion of others. “The right created by the Supreme Court in Roe,” observes University of St. Thomas law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, “is a constitutional right of some human beings to kill other human beings.
The right alleged in Roe is blatantly contradicted by the history of abortion law in the United States. Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment roughly coincided with enactment of a wave of state laws prohibiting abortion from conception with the primary aim (according to clear and abundant historical evidence) of protecting unborn children. Most of these statutes were already on the books by the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, and many of them remained unchanged until Roe struck them down more than a century later. “To reach its result,” Justice William Rehnquist thus concluded in his dissenting opinion, “the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment,”
Now, when you said “Not by anyone who has studied constitutional law and does not bring their disqualifying religious bias into the equation.” You’re guilty of the propositional fallacy of affirming a disjunct…
I think you realize that simply having a religious belief doesn’t, in and of itself, negate ones thinking on this or any subject. More than this, as already demonstrated, the US Supreme Court contravened the decisions and powers of the states that were changing to reflect the peoples view that the fetus was a distinct human
being. In addition, your statement has the further demerit of being demonstrably UNTRUE. Many NON religious, Liberal Constitutional students AND scholars disagree with roe on constitutional grounds. Here is just one such quote..
“As a constitutional argument,” notes University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit
Roosevelt (who favors legalized abortion), “Roe is barely coherent. The Court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether……. Also, “Even pro-choice
legal experts don’t try to defend Roe on its merits. “What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they
included, or the nation’s governmental structure,” wrote the eminent constitutional scholar and Yale law professor John Hart Ely. “It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be”