[wardaddy]

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.

[Huck]

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

A serious question: Would you rather be a slave in a land with abortion outlawed, or a free man where some people elect to permit abortions, and others elect not to? I'd take the latter without hesitation, and in my opinion, that is what is at issue with judicial fiat and out of control federal intrusion.