I could not disagree more. The reasoning of Roe gives one person a "right" to decide the fate of another life, outside of due process. Further, Roe's reasoning removes from the public square any debate on the morality/immorality and rightness/wrongness of permitting the practice.
The Bill of Rights was designed to limit the government's intrusions on citizens rights. By enumerating specific areas in the BOR, and reserving all others to the states and/or people, the framers specifically mandated public debate and legislative decision making on issues not amongst the enumerations. Judicial legislation such as Roe turns the entire "checks and balances" philosophy on its head.
Basically, I see your stated position as saying that (by not specifically mentioning abortion) the BOR says we can't discuss it as a society. Why would we have legislatures and executive branches then, pray tell?
I already said(or should have said) that I understand making the argument about the RIGHTS of the unborn and how far protection is extended or whether that debate is left to the States.
My problem is that by saying States may then decide anything not listed, that anything is up for 51 percent vote to ban, prohibit or punish by THAT reasoning (It's not LISTED in teh Constitution.)
By using that as an argument, we risk sanctioning all regulation and law that infringes on freedoms not ENUMERATED.
If all other questions of rights were left to the States, why have a 9th Amendment at all? there'd only be need for a 10th.