Last I checked, it was not the state forcing women to have abortions, but women choosing to do so themselves.
Last i checked, it was not the state forcing people like Scott Peterson to kill his wife and unborn baby, but Scott choosing to do so himself.
How in the WORLD does that fact allow the states the "right" to deprive an innocent unborn child of life?!?
Again, NO state has the right to deprive an innocent person of life without due process of law (and, no, the state doesn't usually do this in "self defence", but rather individual citizens, so the analogy that you used is wrong).
The 5th and 14th Amendments concern people being deprived of life, liberty, or property by the state without due process. They don't outlaw murder...
They don't?!? Tell that to any number of civil rights activists who were murdered. The 5th and 14th amendments certainly DO outlaw the murder of an innocent person. See that's what "no person shall be deprived of life" means--it is WRONG, UNCONSTITUTION, not allowable, not permissable, illegal to deprive someone of life.
...Those topics are covered under common law and state penal codes.
False-disjunct fallacy. It's not EITHER common law, state penal codes, OR the constitution. It's common law, state penal codes, AND the constitution.
Think of it this way, if you're right. then a state can have the right to permit murder, But this is absurd.
But by your interpretation of the constitution, I am violating the constitution every day by destraining my children from enjoying the fullness of their liberty, said subject also being covered by the same due process clause. The same tenuous link of the state allowing me to do that is there.
Wrong. fallacy of equivocation of the term "liberty" re original meaning.
btw, by YOUR interpretation of the Constitution, it is perfectly constitutionally permissable for you to murder your children, so long as you could get the state legislature to write laws allowing it.
Perhaps it is time to go back and read up what Judge Bork said about this issue of substantive due process.
i was just reading his remarks about that in his book "The Temping of America" not tooo long ago.
HE does not believe what YOU believe.
The 14th Amendment actually argues against your position, unless your definition of "born" is what most people define as "conceived."
No, they don't. The Constitution is a framework for government. It does not define what the law must say. Rather, it assumes the existence of the English Common Law.
then a state can have the right to permit murder
When was Lynching made illegal? Duels? Abortion? Before that, were these not therefore legal?
by YOUR interpretation of the Constitution, it is perfectly constitutionally permissable for you to murder your children, so long as you could get the state legislature to write laws allowing it.
Such as the Roman Law of Paterfamilias? You are projecting a Christian understanding of Natural Law onto a document written in religiously neutral terms. The illictness of murdering children comes from the Common Law understanding of a Christian English people, not from some phrase in the Constitution. Cart before the horse again.
HE does not believe what YOU believe.
Yes he does. He believes the issue of abortion is not addressed in the constitution, and it is up to the people's representatives in the Legislatures to craft laws on the topic.
"From the beginning of the Republic until that day, January 22, 1973, the moral question of what abortions shoudl be legal had been left entirely to state legislatures." (Tempting, p. 112)
He certainly does NOT believe that abortion is outlawed by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. That is precisely the sort of judicial lawmaking that he is so opposed to.