I know what you are saying. Better that there had never been a Roe V Wade which is loosely based on the right to privacy which is in and of itself not clear in the constitution. Better that SCOTUS had had the guts to define what is a living human being and what is not. After that they would have to expand on when a living human being can be deprived of that life. Surely you agree that the constitution did allow for denying some the right to life. These though are deep philosophical, moral, and religious questons that nobody can agree on. Maybe since they are, they should be left to the states to work out until there is a consensus and then SCOTUS or congress can make it the law of the land.
I agree that the state has a right to punish social predators-even denying them life if that is just punishment.
However, it is always implied, in the founding principles, that we are discussing innocent human life.
I am convinced that the right to life of innocent human beings must be protected by every decent human being. It is a moral/social duty for regular folk.
Defending human life is the solemn duty of public officials. It is what the founders would call a shared responsibility, not a power “reserved” to the states, which is what some people at FR keep suggesting is the meaning of federalism.