[wagglebee]

I noticed that you still haven't gotten around to explaining this statement you made in post #125:

If Roe v Wade were overturned, the issue would be up to the States.

Because it is completely incompatible with this statement you made in post #103:

I don't believe the State has any authority to abridge amend or fail to recognize the natural rights of man. That which is forbidden to the Federal Government in recognition of our natural rights, is similarly forbidden to the State Government.

Why is it that on the one hand you affirm that the states do not have the authority to take away natural rights, but on the other hand you suggest that abortion be returned to the states?

Do YOU think that each state should get to decide if abortion is legal within the state? YES or NO.

[allmendream]

“Why is it that on the one hand you affirm that the states do not have the authority to take away natural rights, but on the other hand you suggest that abortion be returned to the states?”

Do I have to explain it to you AGAIN? Are you really THAT dense?

States have no authority to take away natural rights. That is something that every American can hopefully agree upon.

If Roe vs Wade were overturned, it would be a finding that there WAS no natural right to an abortion, and thus States could pass laws against it.

Where does that seem like an incompatibility other than in your inability to think clearly?