third trimester abortions are infanticide, that is precisely my point. the callous tone of the "abortion/infanticide is going to happen. you aren't taking the baby home" sent chills down my spine. the viability issue is a band-aid fix used by abortion proponents...in 100 years who knows how early we will be able to preserve human life outside the womb...you can be certain given the accelerating rate of technology that it will be well into the 2nd trimester. saying otherwise is bad science. never mind that the Roe V. Wade decision was written using intentionally vague and weak language because the court wanted the issue revisited (right to privacy, what the hell is that?). the justices were deeply troubled by this issue and probably never envisioned we would be talking about the legality of crushing the head of a 5 or 6 month old baby to protect the woman's "right to privacy". besides everytime this comes up the knee jerk pro-choice crowd always claims the sky is fallling and that we are on the verge of outlawing abortion. even if the court overturned Roe v. Wade, the decision would go to the states, abortion would not become illegal.
By calling third trimester abortions 'infanticide' you're implying that the fetus is actually a person. From a moral, philosophical, and medical standpoint there may be some value to this assertion. From a legal standpoint, however, it was settled long before Roe that when the constitution refers to a 'person' it only refers to people who have been born alive. If you think that this constitutional interpretation of the word 'person' is wrong, that's fine, but realize that you're opening up a can of worms that extends far beyond the abortion situation.
Also, the 'right to privacy' didn't come out of nowhere. It was first recognized in the contraception cases, not Roe. The practice of finding un-enumerated substantive rights in the due process clause (substantive due process) began long before those cases as well. As early as 1897 the court found that the word 'liberty' in the due process clause encompassed a lot more than just freedom from incarceration. Since then a number of rights have gained and lost favor (the right to contract has had an especially rocky development), with privacy being just one many incarnations of the doctrine.
With all that being said, the only real legitimate pro-life legal arguments are:
1) The word 'person' in the constitution refers to fetuses either from the moment of conception or at some other time before they are born alive
2) Though the fetus itself doesn't have any constitutional protection, the state's right to regulate abortion as a part of its inherent police powers (which has been recognized by the court) outweighs the mother's right to personal autonomy (privacy).
3) The only individual rights retained by the people are those that are specifically enumerated in the constitution. Therefore the substantive due process doctrine, which is not a literal part of the constitution, should be overturned as a whole. In support of this argument, I would also mention that the SDP doctrine has essentially allowed for the court to act as a legislature.
4) Though substantive due process is legitimate and the due process clause does allow the court to recognize and protect un-enumerated rights, the right to an abortion and/or the right to personal autonomy/privacy is not a fundamental due process right.