To reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review. 558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559
The SCOTUS has also previously ruled (until it overturned itself) that blacks and women were not "persons" under the Constitution either. Were they right then, morally, ethically, logically, and philosophically, simply because they decreed themselves "right" legally? The same analysis of Dred Scott applies to Roe v. Wade. If you'd care to take this to a simplistic legal argument and avoid all the ethical, logical, and moral problems your position faces then I'm fine with that. Your call, and you're welcome to concede the ethical, logical, moral, and philosophical to rely only on the current legal if you wish. Say when...
Not conceding anything. Roe v Wade is the law of the land. You happen to disagree, probably because you're a sexist pig or you have an overdeveloped sense of self-righteousness. Your call.
The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport. Saxton Pope
