Slight detour--those people who rant about human rights and, dependence on another person infringing upon that person's rights, don't give a rat's ass when they demand that it is an obligation to help the helpless, and taxation for doing that should be looked upon as a privilege, or something along those lines.

Great point. I guess that means that because all of those "asylum seekers" are dependent upon our tax dollars, can we abort them?

__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine

A lie doesn't become truth, a wrong doesn't become right, and Evil doesn't become good, just because it is accepted by the majority. - Booker T Washington

This is one of many nonsensical and tragic court findings.
Just like the Dred Scott case finding that Blacks could not be U.S. citizens and other piss poor and tortured ideas.
It's a medical FACT that the unborn child is a human being and people "persons" are by default human beings.
And you keep pointing out that the unborn child is NOT the mother.
so by very simple and obvious reasoning an unborn child is in fact a Person.
There's nothing else they could be.

When the supreme court starts trying to parse human beings as NON-persons it's at that point dehumanizing individuals. Seems we should be far beyond the point where the U.S. courts dehumanizing people/persons arbitrarily as "savages", "slaves", "enemy combatants" . In an attempt to deny people basic human rights.

It's incredible to me that the same court can somehow recognize a corporation as a person but somehow has to scratch it's head about the idea that a child with mind and heart beat a half inch from birth is a person.
It's really is just cultural blindness and dehumanization.
Just as sad as when people in earlier eras insisted that Women weren't REAL human beings or persons as well.

There's no rational argument for it, only hand waving and hot air blowing against the obvious living human beings.

As far as the text of the law is concerned
here are 2 legal definitions of person. I'm not sure how the SCOTUS managed to skip these, and instead covered there eyes to not see the obvious.
Black Law Dictionary
PERSON
A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.
1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties;
while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised.
EXISTING PERSON
This term applies to the foetus before it is born.

Law.com
PERSON:
n. 1) a human being.
2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person.

it's not rocket science...

__________________
.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."
..James Madison
.
"Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God."
..1 Peter 2:16

It's a horrible thing that Shiva is such an advocate for baby killing.

__________________

“LET’S GO BRANDON”

If Jesus would have been married it would have been in the New Testament.
Good grief Salty, Jesus had enough on his plate saving in the world.

__________________

“LET’S GO BRANDON”