Each state has a constitution that restrains it.
If man was incapable of evil, then government would be superfluous but its not. In general, I support federalism and the tenth but not where generally agreed to unalienable rights are concerned.
The very question we're dealing with is when does the unalienable right to life begin? It begins when it is capable of existing, without taxing another life's bloodstream, lungs, and digestive system for its own sustenance. Until it can be independent, it is not unalienable. This is also the only way out of the "rape and incest" trap. Anti-Abortionists are going to have to learn that you can't compel a woman to bear a rapists' child - that's unconstitutional - the IVth and the XIIIth make it so.
The right to life should be protected by the constitution of the United States and I think it is. The right to smoke dope should be left to the states.
I will go along with you with the caveat that it is the right to independent life, that must be protected. Until a life can be independent, it must infringe on equally important others' lives and liberty. The right to abortion is a balance between the mother's and child's rights.
So, it is moral to take innocent life because of the sins of the father? Can the state hold you responsible for crimes committed by your father? That is not consistent with a pro life position nor is it consistent with the constitution.
Having said that and others, I am well aware that these are difficult issues and that perhaps rhe only way to solve them is through federalism. But that has no bearing on this argument.
Would you care to rethink this?
It is a prescription for a society devoid of individual responsibility. It spawns the dumping of babies into toilets and dumpsters because people don't want them.
It is a precursor for socialism.
Oh yeah, thats already happening.