Pro-Life v Pro-Choice: A Conservative Justification for a Third Option

REPUBLICAN REDEFINED ^ | T Christopher

[roamer_1]

[...] this is a moral choice; it is the religious choice; and accordingly it is the only choice – and fail to see how said justification flies counter to the spirit and the letter of the 1st Amendment.

The entirety of your argument is based upon a false premise. The Right to Life is the very first enumerated right - the Declaration of Independence transcends the Constitution in two ways:

First in it's precedence: It was written before the Constitution, so the Constitution must bow to the DOI.

Secondly, in the manner of authority: The rights described in the DOI are natural rights, granted to all by God. It follows that no court of Man has the authority to remove those rights from any man... except in the narrow means provided for (in a limiting fashion) by the Constitution: "Just Cause" or "Due Process".

ANY other reading must necessarily strike at the very root of our foundations, including yours. It is *NOT* a moral choice, but a matter of LAW. Sin, by definition, IS lawlessness.

[Mariner]

There's nothing "conservative" with the belief that abortion falls under the Federal Constitution.

It's CLEARLY a 10th Amendment issue. Roe was a bad decision. Any subsequent decision that does more than simply overturn Roe would also be a bad decision.

Abortion, like all murder, belongs to the states.

Any "conservative" who argues otherwise is not conservative.

[markomalley]

It's CLEARLY a 10th Amendment issue

It's more fundamental than a 10th Amendment issue. It's a 5th Amendment issue: No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Abortion deprives a baby of its life without due process. The fact that the Feds are mandating its legality is, as you say, a 10th Amendment issue, but the fact that it occurs at all is a 5th Amendment issue.