Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution. Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen. They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.
Are we back to making the (absurd) argument that only citzens have rights? That is simply not true. Non-citizens enjoy all sorts of legal protections in this country. If, for example, you went out and murdered an illegal immigrant, you would be prosecuted and convicted of the same murder as if he or she were a citizen.
So basing your argument on the 14th amendment citizenship standard is ridiculous. Moreover, what is the mother's competing "right" under the 14th Amendment to which you refer? Oh yes, that "right to privacy" that isn't actually in the 14th Amendment, but was created by liberal justices in response to a stupid
contraception ban. Here's the thing they may not have taught you in ConLaw - there's a difference between
stupid laws and unconsitutional laws.
It is particularly ironic that you point to the intent of the "framers of the 14th Amendment." Do you know what the intent of the 14th Amendment was? It was actually quite narrow, and I can guarantee you it didn't cover the "rights" to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, or anything else liberal justices have managed to shoehorn into the Constitution through an absurd distortion of the 14th Amendment. But I guess that's why you call it "
the most important part of the Constitution."
Seriously, did some law professor actually feed you this crap, or are you reading it off a blog?