There is no Constitutional right to abortion. There is a Constitutional right to choose abortion. It doesn't last forever (hence, a state can ban late-term abortions), . . .
A right that has a time limit? This should be interesting. Can you please pinpoint exactly where this "right to choose abortion" - a right that "doesn't last forever" - can be found in the Constitution?
. . . but it must be able to be exercised in a meaningful way.
It must be? Must? Based on what? And what is "in a meaningful way" defined? Seriously. Show me where in the Constitution it says this.
You can't. It is my opinion that banning abortion before a woman even knows for sure she is pregnant effectively denies her right to CHOOSE abortion.
Let me help you out here, Jazzhead. The term "Constitutional" is not synonymous with the term "Jazzhead's opinion". When using the term "Constitutional", it means that it is backed up with the actual wording in the Constitution. But when you use the term "Constitutional", you mean it to mean that it is backed up by your opinion only with zero reference to the Constitution itself.
I don't disagree with the sentiment that the parties to a sexual relationship exercise responsibility. An unintended pregnancy is just that - unintended.
Vehicular homicide was unintended when someone chose to drive intoxicated. Bankrupting Enron was unintended when someone chose to cook the books. The deaths of eleven oil workers was unintended when someone chose to ignore standard safety procedures on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. The loss of the Challenger space shuttle was unintended when NASA managers chose to ignore the warnings of their engineers. In real life, there are consequences to choices. And as bad as the consequences of these choices may have been, none tried to make it right by destroying an unborn baby.
And, far too often, when an unintended pregnancy occurs, the man heads for the hills, leaving the "problem" -and the burden - with the woman.
It is Roe that caused this. Because abortion is now considered 'birth control' - it is no longer a man's concern. Because abortion lets men off the hook. Because if a man gets a woman pregnant, all he has to do is pressure her and wear her down until she does his bidding for him and absolves him of 18 years of child support. Abortion is for the man - not for the woman. It always has been.
As for your 'head to the hills' nonsense, here is what happened in the first ten years after Roe:
- Out of wedlock births doubled
- The number of abortions doubled
- Promiscuity of teen-age girls tripled
The right is part of the Constitution by reason of the majority decision of the SCOTUS.
You are obviously confused here. The term 'Part of the Constitution' is not the same thing as 'a majority decision of SCOTUS'. A majority decision of the Supreme Court also ruled that slaves remained slaves even in States that outlawed slavery, just like your opinion on legal abortion. A majority decision of SCOTUS also ruled that it was perfectly OK to deny rights to one race over another in direct contradiction to the equal protection clause of Amendment XIV. A majority decision of SCOTUS ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional even though the Bill of Rights directly addresses capital crimes. In every one of these cases, their decision directly contradicted the wording of the Constitution itself. So no, just because the Supreme Court says it does not mean that the Constitution also says it. Not even close.
Your individual gun right is also part of the Constitution for the same reason.
Unlike your so-called abortion right, my individual gun right actually can be found in the Constitution. (See: the Right of the people to keep and bear arms)
And those rights constrain the actions of the States under the Tenth Amendment.
I have never said otherwise. But the problem for you here is that there is no abortion right in the Constitution. And you know there isn't. Which means that there is no such constraint when it comes to the States. And the fact that you yourself resorted to Pennsylvania law on this very same matter affirms the position that States do indeed have this right.
I am demanding nothing more and nothing less than that your gun right
Uh, no. You are demanding that my State be bound solely by your opinion. I would never demand that burden be placed on yours. I wholeheartedly believe that Pennsylvania is free to choose its own abortion laws, marriage laws, etc., within the confines of the US Constitution. Yet you do not believe the same for Georgia. So no, your demands are nothing like mine.
Individual rights matter - and should to anyone who calls themselves a conservative.
Even my right to petition my State and join with my fellow citizens of society to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity? Because I know full well that you do not believe in that type of liberty. You do not trust the people of Georgia, California, or Louisiana to formulate their own laws as a direct reflection of those societies, but insist ... - no, you DEMAND - that they accept your opinion (at the point of a gun, with all the backing of federal judiciary fiat) which you conveniently re-label as "Constitutional".
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
-T. Jefferson-