That argument doesn't hold water. If the state is not allowed to prohibit "sinful behavior" it can not prohibit most criminal acts.
Nonsense. Our common law defines criminal acts. Our constitution protects us from overzealous interpretations of what is 'crime'..
The majority of what are deemed sins by major religions are also the basis of most secular law. If you're familiar with biblical commandments you must know that murder theft, perjury, and false testimony before a judge, among other things the state rightfully prohibits, are also sins in a religious context. Are you saying that the state has no authority to prohibit those "sins" and to punish those who commit them?
I'm saying the state must follow our constitution in the writing of law. They cannot decree that early term abortion is murder, any more than decree 'assault' guns are prohibited..
In the ultimate libertarian "paradise" you seem to advocate there would be a state of lawless anarchy in which individuals are subjected to the depredations of the most rapacious and violent, aka the law of the jungle, the absolute worst possible nightmare any society can experience.
I advocate constitutional law, you do not.. You're having the [nightmare] dream, not me.
Maybe you should direct us to the specific portion of the Constitution which actually forbids the individual states to enact a law prohibiting abortion. I'm not referring to the mental contortions performed by the Warren court in order to make it's predetermined edict appear to at least vaguely resemble a decision based on Constitutional content. I mean literal, textual support for that prohibition.
I find it ironic that you equate the judicially invented "right" to abort a fetus, which was accorded protection through judicial fiat by a sympathetic court without any visible Constitutional support but is vigorously defended by the courts, to the right to keep and bear arms which was accorded specific and clear Constitutional protection by the authors themselves but is not even tepidly defended by the vast majority of the judiciary. Can't you see the the irony of that equation?
I'm saying the state must follow our constitution in the writing of law
You obviously pick and choose which laws you deem Constitutionally correct based not on the clear intent of the authors, but on your own prejudices and nonsensical extremist libertarian ideology. That may be your idea of following the Constitution, but it isn't mine. Have a good day, I'm done with this thread.