Well, how about the passage that Hoodat always relies on: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That happens to be Amendment IX, not Amendment X, although I am not surprised to see you get that wrong considering your contempt for using the Constitution as a basis for law. But since you bring it up, allow me to point out again that the only right being denied here is the right of the people to formulate and establish their own abortion laws. And the fact that you are now using the Ninth Amendment to do so is the greatest irony of all.
The natural rights of man (and woman) endowed by the Creator and secured against state tyranny by the Constitution are not limited to those specifically enumerated therein.
You are not going to get any support for your cause by claiming that the right of a woman to kill her child is an inalienable right granted by God Almighty. A God-given right that suddenly deteriorates to nothing when some arbitrary condition called 'viability' is reached. Never mind that rocks and stones themselves are 'viable' to the Creator you mention.
The Courts in exercise of their Constitutional authority have from time to time extended the Constitution's protections to such unenumerated natural rights, perhaps the most significant for our purposes being the right of personal privacy.
With Roe, it isn't a matter of extending the Constitution's protection. It is a matter of denying the Constitution's protection outright. In this case, the right of the citizens of a State to formulate its own laws as explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights.
The decision made by a woman whether and when to reproduce is personal and private
This has never been about a woman's right to reproduce. The fact that a woman is pregnant shows that her right to reproduce has already been freely exercised. The issue here rests with the new singular life that has been created (by the same Creator you mentioned earlier).
because, at least before viability, the fetus has no independent legal rights of its own.
There you go with that magic 'viability' word again. The word that magically takes a 'constitutional' [sic] right and makes it null and void. The word that is defined by a tyrant wearing a black robe with zero medical training. The same tyrant that would even deny the State's interests by disallowing any testing of viability throughout the mother's guardianship of the unborn child.
And what about that unborn child? The inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator somehow do not apply to that Creation? Bah! Good luck with that defiance of logic and critical thought.
I understand you want to call it a "baby" and do so because of your religious belief that it has a separate soul.
You don't understand jack. My argument has been a legal argument from Day One. I am willing to live under the conditions agreed upon by my societal peers in this society called Georgia. And it is our right as citizens to mold and shape our society as we see fit. If this society decides that shoplifting is a punishable crime, then we will draft laws against shoplifting. If we decide that private citizens pumping their own gas is too dangerous for their own safety, then we will draft laws against pumping your own gas. And if we decide that the valuation of human life will have a positive effect on our society, then we will set laws in place to protect it. But it is OUR CHOICE, not yours. Do whatever you want to do in Pennsylvania, but leave us out of it.
Isn't it ironic that the ones claiming to be "pro-choice" are the same ones hell-bent and determined to deny a "choice" explicitly enumerated in the Constitution to the people of Georgia.
But your religious view does not afford a pre-viable fetus with separate rights as a matter of law
Says the tyrant who has zero law to back up his claim. Contrast that with the Bill of Rights which explicitly says that I do have that right. Besides, when it comes to religion, YOU are the one claiming that abortion is a God-given right, while I continue to claim that self-determination is a legal (i.e. based upon written law) right. Your hypocrisy on this is astounding.
vis a vis the woman of whose body it is wholly and inextricably a part.
Uh, no. The baby has his/her own DNA, his/her own blood, his/her own vital organs, his/her own heartbeat. This remains a medical fact no matter how much you try to dismiss it. The mother and baby do not share anything except for nutrients that pass at the molecular level through the placenta. It is no different than a mother breastfeeding or giving a bottle of formula to a newborn. By law, she is required to provide sustenance to the life she chose to create by the free exercise of her reproductive rights.
It is odd to see so-called conservatives clamoring for the state to impose its will on the individual, personal and private decisions made by millions of women.
No one is imposing their will on women exercising their reproductive rights. A woman is free to engage in any exercise that will lead to pregnancy any time she chooses. But once a new singular right is Created (see "Creator" above), the the State has a vested interest in the outcome of that life.
As far as the rights of the states under the 10th amendment, those rights were never intended to permit a tyranny of the majority to deny the natural and therefore Constitutionally protected rights of the individual.
The right to abortion is not Constitutionally protected. If they were, you would have cited it by now. But after three years of asking, you still come up empty. So quit lying. There is no Constitutional abortion right. Even the drafter of the Roe decision admits that. Enough already.
Conservatives understand well that principle, except when they choose to apply it only with respect to the rights they care about.
Allow me to point out once again that this Conservative is the one standing by what the Constitution actually says while you are the one bypassing the Constitution to impose your will. I am the one willing to accept the collective decision made by my fellow society members here in Georgia in the formulation of our own laws while you are not. I am the one who will never interfere with the right of the people of Pennsylvania to decide their own laws while you stand firm in interfering with Georgia's Constitutionally-protected citizens' rights. So don't try to lecture me about tyranny when you are the one standing by those wearing black robes and holding guns on us.
I keep raising the issue of Heller because it illustrates well your hypocrisy.
You keep bringing up Heller because it is a strawman you think you can win. And unlike abortion, there actually is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Protest all you want, but the natural right of self-defense is not the subject of the Second Amendment.
Our Founding Fathers vehemently disagree. I happen to trust their judgment a heck of a lot more than I trust yours, just as they trust me to determine what is best for Georgia's society than they do you. But don't take my word for it. Here is what Madison had to say about it in
Federalist 46:
The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other.
He goes on:
It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage. . . . Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the people from a tyrannical federal government. So yes, self-defense was absolutely the purpose behind it.
The 2A does not address natural rights, but rather the sovereignty of each state vis a vis the new federal government.
Madison was clear. Each State is its own society made up by individuals in order to serve its people. To each person, it takes precedence over the federal government. To deny that States rights are derived from the people is ludicrous.
The individual states' ability to maintain their citizen militias is protected from denial by the federal government.
The people themselves have that same protection.
It was only, over two centuries later, that a SCOTUS majority midwifed by means of the 2A the Constitution's protection of yet another natural right not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
There are many other cases that predate Heller that have been presented to you. One case being,
Nunn v. Georgia, where the Georgia Supreme Court overturned a ban on handguns by acknowledging that individual gun ownership was a Constitutionally protected right. This has been carefully explained to you more than once already, yet you dishonestly choose to willfully ignore it each time.
So why do conservatives champion the Constitution's protection of the natural right of self-defense but not the natural rights of privacy and self-determination?
This Conservative champions both. Keep in mind that I am the one here standing up for each Georgian's right of self-determination in shaping our society under Amendment X of the Constitution. Contrast that with your stance to deny the people of Georgia that right with absolutely no Constitutional basis at all.
Again, YOU are the one stating unequivocally that "Abortion must remain legal" in Georgia, while I could care less what you do in Pennsylvania. So who is the tyrant now?