Replies

This snake needs to be cut off at the head in my view or we shall just go back and forth until the unborn are granted constitutional protection by a packed SCOTUS who decide from whatever constitutional angle necessary to do so.

To me this isn't even a justifiable goal. I understand your point. I simply put the right to self government above the right of the unborn. The process itself must be jealously guarded. Scalia's been carrying the water all these years. Thomas is good, too. GWB's gotta get us 3-4 more. If the states want a constitutional ban on abortion, let them amend the constitution.

Roe reeks of Dred on the "not ever having been given life's constituional protection as yet unborn" logic transposed with "not a full person and hence not entitled either" ala Dred.

Now, we see where Dred led eventually.

If if as you claim there really is no Constitutional right to life for the unborn verbatim except some DOI rhetoric then we cannot logically outlaw abortion thru anything SCOTUS can interpret strictly (?)

Hence, we will be left in a void between varying states and competing Federal judiciaries making the run up from District to SCOTUS on every challenge from either side ad infinitum.

Hence, since in 67 when Kali and Colorado legalized abortion on their own and got the ball rolling up to Roe eventually, it's been a fait accompli and all we can hope for is just to toss it back to the states forever....all because two states made that fateful decision which was then rubber stamped universally by bad law with Roe?

I'm not prepared to live with those consequences forever simply to preserve judicial purity when that same judicial purity has not really ever existed except as an inspiration...not a practice.

Hoping for an idyllic situation while infanticide continues unabated is idealistic.

I'm in favor of strict constitutionalism but not to the point of falling on one's sword to in essence maintain something that should have never been.

but that's just me.