[Morgan in Denver]

One problem conservatives have to face is either we are for state’s rights or we are not. If we are then abortion would become one of those issues states decide. If it’s a national issue, then there needs to be a constitutional amendment passed since the constitution does not address it (the major problem with Roe v Wade).

My only point is there are numerous questions besides simply yes or no on Roe.

[Mr. Lucky]

When abortion was left up to the states, it was universally illegal; now that it's left up to the feds, it's universally legal.

Fred's position makes sense to me.

[kjam22]

I tend to believe that abortion isn’t anymore a states right issue than immigration is.

[dufekin]

Of course we believe in States’ rights. But the right to life does not come from the Government but from Almighty God, and no State or person can deny or abridge that right in the case of an innocent person. States do not have the right to enslave anyone because the Constitution forbids it (Thirteenth Amendment). The Declaration of Independence lays out the existential purpose of government: to secure the certain unalienable rights with which Almighty God endowed each of us from the moment of creation.

And we already have two Constitutional amendments addressing this very issue: the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, the latter more explicit regarding the role of the States: “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....” The Fifth Amendment doesn’t mention any aggressor, governmental or otherwise: “No person shall ..., nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....”

The Supreme Court apparently didn’t understand the difference between a living human baby and a cancerous tumor when it decided Roe v. Wade (1973). The justices shamefully implicitly rejuvenated Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), a terrible decision that set the awful precedent that a genetically human individual somehow did not meet their hypertechnical legal definition of “person.”

So while States should run their own respective education systems and regulate health care without interference from the federal government, they simply cannot permit the wholesale slaughter of their Posterity, to whom our Constitution intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty.

[loboinok]

If it’s a national issue, then there needs to be a constitutional amendment passed since the constitution does not address it (the major problem with Roe v Wade).

Preamble

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Constitution covers it well, IMO

[Vigilanteman]

Huckabee's stance is pure sophistry on this issue. The time for a human life amendment is after Roe v. Wade is overturned. There is no way it will even get out of congress, let alone be ratified by 3/4th of the state legislatures before then.

Thompson's stance is both realistic and respectable.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Right..on!