I doubt the founders were considering abortion as a right 'retained by the people.'

Assigning the definition "servitude" to the gestation period of the normal and natural life cycle of our species is absurd. Insisting on that definition requires a religion all of its own.

I did not down vote you and +1 bumped you back up. Your arguments are common, well expressed, and need discussion.

I disagree. Here is where/why:

It is technically human life (life, human DNA), this is objective. What is really at hand here is whether it is a human life "worthy" of "protecting" - and that is a non-scientific question. It doesn't require religion, there can be a philosophical reasoning behind that - because it is a philosophical question.

Fundamentally that is a discussion had in other areas. For example, citizens are almost universally afforded more rights than non-citizen residents.

As I see it there are two base positions, given the acceptance of human rights at all: "worthy" from conception vs "worthy" at some other point. In a way it is a bit like the old joke of "madam, we've already established what type of woman you are now we're just haggling over price."

The question of where that point is, will be largely philosophical and thus vary. For example, many people commonly accept "at birth" - though recent evidence shows many don't even accept birth but conceivably some other later point. Christian religious philosophy does have a basis in the at-birth with the phrase "And I shall breathe the breath of life into them" as something that can be interpreted that way.

Historically, christian position pre-Roe was the "quickening" - when mom can feel movement. Again, this is not an objective point in time. This is part of why Roe was a bad decision from the onset - regardless of one's perspective on the points above.

Now, as to the servitude angle. For the "pro-choice" group it isn't really about servitude. If it was, they would be "pro-choice" for everyone - men included. That would mean giving the male the option to not be forced into decades of servitude to support a person he did not want to. Yet, in my experience, raising this notion with them pushes them into rage over the idea that the man wouldn't "do his share" to support the child he didn't want.

As hard as it may be to imagine, this was not a major/controversial issue before Roe was handed down. Roe became a rallying point for both sides, and they've each cashed in on it since. The decision by the conservative appointed Justices was largely in-line with the religious and generally accepted view on it. If you swap "viability" and "the quickening" it is pretty much the same vague "standard." Which only demonstrated further that it is a philosophical assertion as to where human biological life becomes "worthy" of "protection" and rights.

How is canning Roe servitude? That doesn't make sense.

""This" is a First Amendment issue because the only basis for Government action in abortions is the life of the Zygote or fetus, and this is fully based on religion."

Then you admit then that the discussion is actually about a right to life - not a right to free speech or association or petition for redress. If you want to argue that the definition of life has been made by religiously-oriented individuals rather than by you, why don't you define life, then - especially human life. Where does one draw the line?

"My point is that the continuous manipulation of the limits of government intrusion..."

Government's first and foremost responsibility is to protect Life. You can't have any other right without Life. No liberty. No pursuit of Happiness. No property. No association. No self-protection. Nothing else matters unless Life is secure.

You argue it is a matter of "intrusion." The moral problem with this approach is that if one refuses to define the unborn as human it becomes a slippery slope fallacy on what else then fails to qualify as human. Hitler used this same perverted logic to qualify Jews as inhuman. Margaret Sanger promoted abortion precisely because she wanted to get rid of Blacks, believing them to be sub-human. Slavery as was present in the United States and other regions of the World circa 1700-1800 was facilitated because of the simple refusal to see other human beings on equal terms.

The Declaration of Independence was novel for many reasons, but one of the cardinal ones was in a recognition that humans were granted rights not because of condition, skin color, race, creed, religion - or political persuasion - but simply for being human. Throw away that primary rationale and it becomes all too easy for government to become the arm of tyranny.

Point well taken, thanks

I don't have to cut off my leg to know that it hurts.

However, I am philosophically ok with your suggestion, if we leave this discussion all to women, and all men are silent.

Testosterone injections biweekly will induce temporary sterility in men. But the FDA Fool and Dunce Administration will not allow its use for that purpose, and the DEA Denying Equal Access restricts it and not estrogens as a controlled substance. Sexism! And vasectomies are not guaranteed reversible. Get your facts straight.

Hey, a vas deferens magnetic valve!

Perhaps the left will set up government funding for that. Then those guys and their ladies don't have to worry.

But, that will piss off the refried Christians and Catholics who actually seek to eliminate sex, since they suck at it or never get any. No consequences! Like Splenda!

Taking responsibility for your own actions would be a better solution, I agree.

"Basic civil rights belong at the federal level."

Agreed. But let's remember that rights are individual. As soon as a second person becomes involved, you get into contractual arrangements. And what it really comes down to isn't necessarily the contract per se, but the enforcement of the contract which de facto falls to civil courts.

Wow, the woman would have to plan ahead. That's an overwhelming effort. [/s]

"But no one makes this argument from a secular position." I guess that makes me "no one". A human's life cycle begins with a single living cell. There is no need to assign a soul or any other religious component to understand that simple truth. Leave out the mysticism and you still have a living human in it's earliest stage of life. As can be observed, many can find reason to kill it, but many have found reason to kill humans in later stages of life as well. If we wish to be called "civilized" and hold individual human life as valuable we need to be VERY careful here.

Really? You have a basis for that assertion? Because I truly mourned the miscarriage of my child, and so did my husband.

Every time my doctor suggests he wants to poke 30 holes in my prostate I just laugh at his insanity. [/s]

I have been thinking similarly to you about brainwaves.

So. If one never wishes to risk becoming a parent, they must elect life-long celibacy?

Agreed. There are, apparently, laws on the books in at least some states which completely outlaw abortions and were never changed because Roe superseded them. If Roe is overturned, those states will go back automatically to those laws unless their legislatures take some action to change them.

I agree that why matters.