>>>>>Our basic unalienable rights are not defined by the constitution. The founders clearly understood that.
And so I:
.... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
>>>>>I have ALWAYS believed in the personhood of the fetus, from the time of conception.
I believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is the taking of a human life. Problem. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention anything about the fetus being a person, or about abortion, the unborn human or life beginning at conception. And I seriously doubt the SCOTUS will ever grant personhood to the fetus based on an interpretation of the 14th amendment that no justice holds.
However, when "We the people" are ready to give our consent to our elected officials and through majority rule, demand a HLA be added to the Constitution. Then and only then, will we have true protection for the unborn.
>>>>>As to your argument, The 10th amendment clearly reserves rights both to the states and the people, so not everything that isn’t a federal responsibility is a state responsibility.
When it comes to the issue of abortion, the 10th Amendment is crystal clear. There is no ambiguity whatsoever.
>>>>>I think I understand the basis for the disagreement here. You and I have opposing views on the unalienable, God-given right of a pre-born to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Wrong. The basis for our disagreement is simple. I understand and respect the Constitution. You do not.
Then again, about a week or so ago, I thought you did understand and respect the Constitution. In an article thread I posted by John Hawkins, you agreed with Fred Thompson --- and by default many others, myself included --- on his federalist viewpoint concerning abortion and RvW.
Remember, in Fred Thompson, Tim Russert, Federalism, and Abortion, you said, "I agree with this analysis. That analysis was in support of Fred`s federalist approach.
I don’t know why you keep confusing the constitution and rights. But since you do, I don’t see how a rational discussion is possible.
...Republicans can't ban abortion outright because of Roe v. Wade. We could try for a constitutional amendment to get around that, but it would be futile, because they couldn't get enough support for it. Until Roe v. Wade is overturned (and we'd need to replace at least one more judge after Alito gets on the court to do it), we're stuck.
In other words, that whether Fred was right or not made no real difference at this time, because HLA can't be passed.
I was not (and should have made it clearer, although then I would have typed more words and been "bloviating") that I was agreeing that Fred's position should not be a danger to the pro-life cause.
Of course, now I'm confused as to what Fred's position is. Some still claim he is opposed to HLA on federalist grounds, while other supporters claim he is NOT opposed to HLA but simply understood it had no chance of passing.
I haven't seen any pro-fred person try to discuss with another pro-fred person the differences in these two interpretations, so I don't know what the consensus opinion of the supporters are.
So I've taken to noting whenever I discuss this that I don't know what Fred's position is, lest I be attacked by one side or another for "misrepresenting" it.
That is incorrect. I understand and respect the Constitution. Our disagreement is on whether the preborn is a person.
You want to argue about whether the constitution explicitly defines pre-born as human. That isn't the point. Humans do not get their inalienable rights ONLY if the Constitution grants them.
The Slaves had the unalienable God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, even when the constitution explicitly took it from them.
This is an argument about what is right, not about what the constitution says. I COULD argue your constitutional position, as it seems clear that when they wanted to restrict personhood to born humans they were able to do so explicitly. But I don't need to get into that argument, because this was not a discussion about the constitution.
The HLA is a way to fix what is either a correct or incorrect interpretation of the constitution as it relates to personhood. As such, arguments about whether HLA is right or wrong are NOT constitutional arguments, as the goal is to CHANGE the constitution.
I know I said I wouldn't discuss further, but I really do think you understand this stuff enough that if you stop trying to filter everything through your pro-fred glasses you will at least be able to respond to my actual argument, and if not at least others who are reading can benefit.