Nonsense. Why are you dodging something that is so blatantly obvious. If a woman says “I wish to have an abortion†and the government says “no, you may not,†then the government has clearly forced her to do something, it has stopped her from doing something she wants to do.
I understood your argument above, stated to
@IsailedawayfromFR, to be that the US Constitution limits the authority of government, not the rights of individuals; and consequently that the Federal Government cannot compel a woman to continue a pregnancy and can compel the states to refrain from any similar regulation. I agree with the premise of your argument but not with its conclusion.
In the quote immediately above you've argued that an anti-abortion law would both
require a woman to do something, and
prevent a woman from doing something. Which is it?
All laws prevent people from doing things, and any law can be re-stated as requiring someone to do the opposite of what it prevents. Your position that prohibiting abortion is fundamentally unconstitutional because it requires a woman to continue a pregnancy begs the question of the right of the unborn child to live. I can just as easily, and speciously, argue that the protection of one man's vote is fundamentally unconstitutional because it requires that another man do something - not interfere with the franchise.
I join you wholeheartedly in arguing that the Constitution limits the powers of government, not the freedoms of individuals. But laws inevitably limit the freedoms of individuals, and we cannot avoid this reality by arguing that a prohibition of one behavior is a requirement of its opposite.
If we simply agree that the current state of federal law is that an unborn child has no right to life before viability, and that no state may assert such a right, then you and I have no argument
@Oceander. Attempting to square that (in my opinion lamentable) legal fact with larger principles inevitably comes down to begging the question that an unborn child has no right to live. My ancestors were "pro choice" on a critical issue of their day, and made similar arguments that other people lacked other fundamental rights, up until 1865.