An ad hominem attack as a substitute for logical argument....nice.
-----
The slave states gave consent to their lack of representation in Congress by their secession and participation in the insurrection.
LOL! The entire argument of the federal government having 'authority' over the Southern states was that the South never left the Union, so your 'tortured chain of reasoning falls apart right there'.
Now, would you like to actually discuss the issue, or are you just going to continue acting as if government has the authority to define everything?
-----
BTW, here's what early colonial law said on the subject of abortion:
COMMENTARIES on the LAWS OF ENGLAND
Sir William Blackstone, 1765
BOOK THE FIRST - OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS
CHAPTER THE FIRST - OF THE ABSOLUTE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS
Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.
Whether or not the states successfully left the Union by their Acts of secession is not at issue. What is at issue is that the act of secession did certainly entail forfeiture of representation in the U.S. Congress.
Once that had been forfeited, everything those states had to do to get it back was a consequence of that action, not an outside imposition.
What does Blackstone’s opinion of abortion in 1765 matter? I thought nerarly all conservatives agree that Blackmun’s definition of personhood was erroneous.