[tpaine]

In Roe the USSC said that states could not ~decree~ early term abortion to be the crime of murder. The facts must be prosecuted before a jury using due process.
The USSC has no ability to stop a state from prosecuting murder. Get your local proscutor to indict, and hold a trial.

Can you or anybody on your side explain, in a straightforward and coherent manner, why we should accept and respect Roe as a valid interpretation of the Constitution?

Because we cannot allow fed, state, or local governments to have the power to prohibit 'sinful' behaviors.
No matter how morally repugnant a majority may find certain acts or objects, we must observe our bill of rights in regulating them, in a reasonable fashion.
Criminalizing early term abortion as murder is an unreasonable prohibition; -- states have no such power..

I have the same opinion on our RKBA's, as evidenced by a post I made earlier this morning:

The right to reasonably 'bear' [carry] property of all sorts -[including arms] about our land is inalienable, to rational men..
The concept that a state has the power to absolutely prohibit carrying such benign objects is repugnant to our constitutional principles on its face..

Thus the concept that a state must show reasonable & 'compelling needs' for any such regulations, before adopting them using due process.
Fiat prohibitions on carrying arms are not enacted within the due process of constitutional law.

[Diamond]

The right to reasonably 'bear' [carry] property of all sorts -[including arms] about our land is inalienable, to rational men..

But the right to LIFE isn't?

The concept that a state has the power to absolutely prohibit carrying such benign objects is repugnant to our constitutional principles on its face..

So why is it not equally Constitutionally repugnant for the USSC to deny the power of a state to absolutely prohibit the killing of innocent human beings who may one day carry these beign objects, a right which you yourself correctly describe as inalienable? Without the right to life, the right to carry is meaningless and void. Of course the only difference is that the pre-born are not big enough to defend themselves, with or without firearms. But if you wish to relegate abortion-killing to a matter of pure arbitrary power of one human being over the life of another human being then please don't talk to me about inalienable rights, including the right to carry, or for that matter, one's own right to life. If one does not respect the right to life of others then one has no reason to demand that selfsame respect from others.

Cordially,

[cpforlife.org]

"The first and only legitimate object of good government is the care of human life, not its destruction!" Thomas Jefferson

"Because we cannot allow fed, state, or local governments to have the power to prohibit 'sinful' behaviors. No matter how morally repugnant a majority may find certain acts or objects..." tpaine

Your "logic" could have been, and probably was, used to defend slavery. Congratulations, tpaine. You've got the mind and soul of both a slave owner AND an abortionist.

And why do you want to keep bringing up abortion as a sin? I want to outlaw abortion for the same reason it WAS outlawed prior to Roe in most states. The states did not outlaw it because it was a sin, now did they tpaine?

[cpforlife.org]

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign."





Mother Teresa (Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94)