Got another letter posted on WorldNetDaily

[RedSox02]

This is the second time I have had a letter of mine posted at worldnetdaily.com, and it is probably only the second time I have written them. Anyways, yesterday Joseph Farah wrote that the Constitution protects the unborn, because our founding fathers state that the Constitution applies to both ourselves and our posterity. (Posterity meaning future descendants.) Somehow Farah believes this means all unborn people have the same rights guarunteed by the Constitution. Here's my letter. It is also the second one down if you follow the link.

http://www.wnd.com/letters.asp

I must raise a few objections to your argument that the Constitution protects the unborn.

Your main argument seems to be that since the Constitution mentions our posterity, or future descendants, as being protected by the Constitution, we must therefore extend the same basic rights to the unborn. You mention a possible great, great, great, great granddaughter as an example of an unborn "posterity."

However, when does one's hypothetical descendant become posterity? At conception, or at birth?

A woman carries a lot of potential posterity in her. If she goes through a menstrual cycle and does not become pregnant, did she just kill off some of her posterity without due process? What decides which egg counts as posterity and which doesn't? What does the Constitution protect? Does the Constitution protect all sperm cells as well?

The Constitution does not define posterity. Therefore, I hate to say it, but your argument becomes useless.