Replies

I might have finally found an issue on which I disagree with His Excellency, Justice Scalia - a brilliant beacon of truth who I thank Ronald Reagan for almost every day. But, alas, not a protestant, and perhaps for that reason, less than objective on this issue.

I see a right to abortion in the 9th Amendment, and in the 4th Amendment - the right to be secure in one's person.

Life begins at independence. A woman can't be forced to use her body to provide life support for another, if she doesn't want to. You can extend this logic out to support a position against welfare. It's entirely consistent with conservatism. The state has no business in protecting the life of the unborn until that unborn life can live on its own, (no one (mother) should have to live for the sake of another(a physically attached person))

The Constitution places "persons" in an inferior position, to "citizens". Persons are not necessarily free. Children do not attain full liberty until they are responsible even though they are citizens, as defined by the 14th Amendment.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm
That is a deprivation liberty in accordance with due process of law. If age discrimination can be used to deprive liberty, it can be used to deprive life too. Murder is a state, not federal crime. The Constitution leaves it up to the States to outlaw murder, and they do just fine with that obligation (As they would many other obligations, like education, health care, welfare, drug regulation, etc., had it not been for Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment allowing Congress to butt in).

The Constitution leaves it up to the States to decide how long before birth life begins to be something it is responsible for protecting. They will do just fine on that too.

If a State decides that it is under no obligation to protect life until, say, 6 months after conception (i.e. it decides that's when life becomes independent), then neither I nor the Constitution has a problem with that. That would allow a woman to choose abortion up to 6 months into the term. I think this is what would happen if Roe V. Wade were properly overturned. - Abortion would be available, but less convenient, and the Constitution would be healthier.

I'm not pro-choice, but I'm pro-state-choice, and pro-Constitution.

The Constitution leaves it up to the States to outlaw murder, and they do just fine with that obligation (As they would many other obligations, like education, health care, welfare, drug regulation, etc., had it not been for Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment allowing Congress to butt in).

The point is that the states cannot not outlaw murder. The federal government and the constitution are required to protect the rights of the American people. The only debatable point is, when is a person a person and since person is analagous to human, when is an unborn human.