What do you mean, "allowing" states to adopt abortion, post Roe v. Wade
What do you think the effect of overturning Roe v. Wade is going to be?
Overturning Roe will not stop a single abortion. It will simply return the law to the states, most of which, I'm quite sure, will legalize all first trimester abortions and restrict or outlaw the rest.
If you don't think you can get a single state to make abortion illegal after Roe vs Wade was reversed, how do you think you will get 2/3s of them to do it to change the Constitution?
Jim Noble wrote:
What do you mean, “allowing” states to adopt abortion, post Roe v. Wade
What do you think the effect of overturning Roe v. Wade is going to be?
Overturning Roe will not stop a single abortion. It will simply return the law to the states, most of which, I’m quite sure, will legalize all first trimester abortions and restrict or outlaw the rest.
. x . x . x .
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, then there no longer is a right to abortion contained within the mysterious right to privacy.
My point was that abortion is taking an innocent human life.
And that, by a consistent reading, the United States Constitution cannot permit that. Even if a state legalizes abortion, it could still be unconstitutional under the Constitution. A state permitting abortion (murder) would be a violation of several constitutional provisions, including the amendment that denies the taking of a life without due process.
By legalizing abortion, a state is passing a law that allows a private party to take another’s life and the state does not protect that life or permit it or its advocates due process in the legal system to protect itself.
Of course, this is all premised on the idea that taking an innocent unborn life is taking the life of a person as understood in the Constitution.
We can always continue with a court-created or legislated, nonscientific statement that a human life is not a human life until its born or “viable” or we can say it’s not a person until its “conscious” or whatever.
You know, the same kind of game slaveowners and traders played with Africans in order to justfify enslaving them for their own convenience. Or the games Hitler played in defining down the humanity of Jews, gypsies, etc., in order to have a justification to mass murder them.
Bottom line: If an unborn baby is a human being (which science and common sense says it is), then it has constitutional rights that would be violated by a state pro-abortion law.
That was the point.