[Trinity_Tx]

There are two reasons that Roe v. Wade is reprehensible.... The second should be of concern even to pro-abortion libertarians. It broke the Constitution by reading into it things that simply weren't there, made personal opinion into law, legislated arbitrarily from the bench.

Exactly. Any strict constructionist judge would overturn it.

And for all the slamming they get here, libertarians are quite mixed on the issue of abortion law and morality.

[Cicero]

Thanks for the reply. I don't knock all libertarians by any means. My point was that even libertarians who favor abortion should be disturbed by Roe v. Wade because it was an unconstitutional decision.

I hope that as time goes on, libertarians will move from the pro-abortion to the pro-life camp. As I see it, a libertarian is someone who believes in individual freedom. If they see abortion as a freedom, then they will tend to favor it. But abortion is a bogus freedom. It's convenient to the mother, maybe, and cheaper for the father than getting married and raising a child. But unfortunately it involves taking a life.

For me, the Constitution is based on the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, which speaks of the "inalienable" rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That means freedom for everyone, including slaves, and it means a right to life for everyone, including unborn children. What use is it to be free if you're dead? And what kind of freedom is it that depends on killing somebody else?