Two days later and still no comments on this, the hottest post-election topic running? Fear not, here I am to save the day!

I'm not a Specter fan. My judgement is that he's an influence peddler of the first-order. I am a Thomas Sowell fan. He argues ('Specter's Chair' above) that Specter is unqualified because he wants "predictability" from judges rather than the "impartial and independent" (I would have said 'objective') judgement required to uphold and strengthen the Constitution.

But if Specter falls short on this criteria, what about the remaining 11 or so Republican members of Judiciary? Hugh Hewitt writes, "The Chairmanship will have great power, of course, but what matters far more than the name of the Chair is resolve in insisting that the GOP majority be reflected in the Committee make-up, and that Senator Frist appoint serious pro-life members to the new vacancies." Insisting on "serious pro-life members" would demand more than mere predictability - they want that wink and a nod that will guarantee another justice in the anti-Roe column.

This subject doesn't just "risk" discussion of abortion - it demands it. And there SHOULD be no compunction among rational people about having that discussion. I've posted my argument on these pages before, so I won't repeat it. Let it suffice to say that whatever the technical construction of Roe, with which I am unfamiliar, it's result is completely and perfectly congruous with both the Constitution and with an objective code of morality. There are many reasons why an individual woman may choose to kill her unborn child, some of which are more defensible than others. But in order to create a law that says in cases "X, Y and Z" she doesn't have that right, one must first abandon the principle of self-determination for every individual and their own body. That's a line that can't logically be crossed without appeal to NED, to emotion, or both.

I *was* starting to worry...

The "risk" I perceived was not so much the discussion, but the inevitability of discussing abortion instead of Constitutional law.

Either would be interesting -- it appears we have plenty of disagreements on both topics. I was looking to discuss Roe v Wade a little more constitutionally.

"Congruous with the Constitution" is NOT good enough, jg. An absolute right to prescription drugs is congruous with the preamble's interest in general welfare. Bans on hate speech are congruous with equal protection. I am fuddy-duddy enough to say:

-- "if it is not explicitly and clearly spelled out in the Constitution, then the Tenth Amendment kicks in and it is a matter for the states." --

Period.

The Constitution doesn't say "right to privacy," so Roe v Wade is made up law built on a made up law. I want a SCOTUS that actually reads the documents. Penumbras-schennumbras! and congruous-schmongruous! A judge that thinks Roe v. Wade is Constitutional is unfit for the bench.

To diverge is human...about abortion:

First: I respect your clear use of language. The absence of euphemism in your comment is refreshing.

Pardon me if my question is obvious but: "Does this child not have 'individual' rights as well? And do they not at some point equal the mother's?" One can argue about where that point exists. I am certainly not clear. The "morning after pill" doesn't bother me; partial-birth is infanticide to the same sensibilities.

The best argument of the life-begins-at-conception crowd is "if you don't place the marker at conception, any other place is arbitrary." I have no reasonable counter-argument to that.

I would vote, in my state, for legal abortions with reasonable regulations. Roe v. Wade prevents reasonable limits on the procedure and terminates most any legislative voice.

"Explicitly and clearly spelled out in the Constitution" only carries one so-far. For example, a text search of the Constitution and Bill of Rights will find no mention of "Voice Over Internet Protocol" yet you applaud the federal government action that declared it "interstate commerce" and therefore "off-limits" for state government regulation.

The "right to privacy" that you cite is a restatement of the "right of the people to be secure in their persons" (4th amendment) and must not be infringed by any state government.

Now, Q&A time:

An unborn child has no "individual rights" because it is not an individual. It has a parasitic relationship with its host, aka mother.

Life does begin, BEGIN mind you, at conception, but individual rights begin when you become an individual, i.e. birth. There is no such thing as "parasitic rights". Granting rights to an unborn child is tantamount to granting rights to a kidney.

Except in emergency situations, there is no "reasonable limit" on individual liberty and security in your person.

Your serve!

Discussion Track One:
I do not long for a Constitutional Right to VOIP, yet abortion supporters insist that there is a clear Constitutional right to abortion.

I think that I could come up with examples all day that are no more far fetched than "secure in your person" implies privacy, which implies abortion. Thanks, I am going to stick with "explicitly spelled out."

Discussion Track Two:
Your position seems fair and explains most of my leanings. Will you let me say that the child reaches a stage of viability and is then deserving of individual rights? A child on the receiving end of D&X (partial birth) is probably able to live without the mother. I would then say that that child is deserving of protection.

One:
If pro-choice advocates insist that there is a "Constitutional right" to abortion then they are not quite accurate. Instead, there is a constitutional prohibition against the government's infringement of that right.

If you insist that the provisions of the Constitution only be applied as they are "explicitly spelled out" then, since the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit abortion, it would be a Constitutional right. Right?

Two:
You have zeroed in on the soft underbelly of this principled argument in support of Roe: The case of a near full-term mother choosing to abort - for whatever reason - an otherwise viable child, were he already out of the mother. But getting out of the mother is no trivial feat. Until Captain Kirk can beam the tot out with no ill effects on the mother, it simply HAS to be up to the mother (hopefully with consultation of her physician) to choose a course of action upon HER body.

As my brilliant wife puts it, "If she doesn't have the right of final decision then who does... the government?"

I will agree with you that aborting a child simply to avoid the pain and discomfort of childbirth or Caesarian after the child is at term is almost completely indefensible, but so is the use of such a rare and extreme example to justify imposing the will of the state upon individuals. Of all the places in which a line can be drawn, this is the most morally defensible I can present: Individual rights apply to individuals, and not to the conjoined progeny of individuals.

Well, no.

The Tenth Amendment stipulates that what is not explicitly deemed beyond legislation in the Constitution is left to the states to decide. My claim is that abortion clearly falls into this category.

We're all opportunistic Federalists to a point. Roe v. Wade is convenient to those who support abortion. But I think the Burger court overstepped its Constitutional purview in a big way.

Senators with a "litmus test" of support for Roe may be representing their constituents. I would be against a litmus test on the other side, but feel that any judge who supports Roe v. Wade is by definition a judicial activist and should not be on the court.

Pro Choice, Anti Roe -- think I can sell bumper stickers?

I was waiting until I had time to write my very own first post, but alas my schedule has not allowed it. But this is such a good discussion I just can't stay out. Currently a mother has complete control over the life of her baby, up to and including control over life itself. Conversely, overturning Roe would subjugate the mother to the baby, a mother would be forced to carry the baby to term to avoid usurping the baby's right to life, depriving her of liberty. This brings us not to a Constitutional argument, but going back before that to the Declararion of Independence and to the two most inalienable rights to life and liberty. Since mother and baby are one, the parasitic relationship to which JG refers, giving life to the baby removes liberty from the mother just as much as the current situation of giving liberty to the mother can remove life from baby. As for the state's rights argument, did Lincoln have it wrong in 1863 when he declared liberty to be a federal right and not to be left up to the states?

That is correct Silence. Individual rights can not be granted to a non-individual baby without first withdrawing those rights from the once and future individual, the mother.

For any state to legislate that in the event a female citizen becomes pregnant she is no longer an individual but rather, a 'miniature collective,' would fly in the face of everything stated in all of America's founding documents, explicit AND implicit.