Sell me on your candidate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Romney losing will benefit conservatives because we'll be rid of the Mittbot.

...and guarantee legal abortion for the next 20-30 years.

That's already guaranteed.  At most swinging the balance of court might be enough to get Roe v. Wade and their successors overturned and the issue of abortion sent back to the state legislatures to decide.  (Which I happen to agree with.  Abortion depends upon the definition of when a human life begins which is a a subjective decision, not an objective one.  As such it should have been left to the legislative power to decide, not the judicial, and to the state governments, not the federal government.)  Thing is once returned there, I expect there are at most one or two Plains states plus Utah that would completely ban abortion.  Most would keep it legal in at least the first trimester, or if they didn't would soon repeal the first trimester restrictions once new elections were held.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Abortion is a question that America has answered.  It will never, ever be illegal in any state.  Thus, basing your vote on a candidate's position on abortion is absurd.

No. The Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Utah could all conceivably ban abortion if they could, and there are fair number of states that would ban second trimester abortions.

Granted, the vast majority of abortions are first trimester, and for about 90% of Americans they wouldn't have to cross a state line to get one, but if the Supremes returned abortion to the state legislatures, abortion access would tighten up considerably in most states.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is actually unconstitutional due to the 14th amendment privileges and immunities clause, which reserves this to the federal government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Completely false. It's an objective decision, and also one which can only be done on the federal level. Again, refer to the 14th Amendment as to why, when they struck down Dred Scott.

No, its subjective.  Neither the pro-life or pro-choice advocates are in favor of aborting a human life, but those who are pro-choice don't define human life as beginning at conception.  There is no objective standard for whether life begins at conception, quickening, viability, or birth that can be drawn from natural law, just subjective preferences for one of those four most popular dividing lines.  Nor is there a subjective standard that is in the Constitution for the Supreme Court to rule on.  Possibly one could argue that it is a Federal question that the Congress could set a standard for if it chose, but that still would leave it as something to decided by a legislature, not a court.

You seem to be advocating overturning Roe with a constitutional amendment, but there is zero chance of one passing anytime soon, or of a Federal definition of marriage being placed into the Constitution to name another hot button social issue.  Even in the unlikely event it got pass Congress, it would never get the necessary 38 states.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No it's not. Legally the standard at present is set at birth, and yes, it's in the 14th amendment, and yes, it's a power of the federal government, via the privileges and immunities. I suggest you take the time to look up the clause before arguing that it's subjective. No, it's a very clear and objective standard.

The argument is over which objective standard should be used, conception or birth. Prolifers argue for conception, pro abortion people argue for birth.

When we can't even agree on how to apply the words objective and subjective, I despair of us having a useful conversation, but I'm willing to still try for now.  Conception and birth as the starting point of life are both subjective standards for which we can objectively measure whether they have been met.  However, that does not make them objective standards.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Roe is terrible law. There is no constitutional basis for a trimester framework to personhood.
[/quote]

There is almost no constitutional basis to personhood anywhere in the constitution.  There is a bare minimum of being born, but more expansive definitions are not prohibited therein.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, if Roe could establish abortion, then the removal of Roe would not entail a constitutional amendment. I am in favor of establishing a constitutional basis for personhood of the unborn, but removing Roe would be the first step towards this.
[/quote]

Quite the reverse if anything.  If there is anything in the 14th Amendment that establishes when personhood begins, as opposed to citizenship, then it would be that personhood begins at birth the same as citizenship.  However, the 14th is mostly silent on the issue of personhood.  While a citizen must be a person which implies that personhood begins at birth or earlier, not all people are citizens.

As for whether a reversal of Roe would lead to a constitutional amendment on abortion, I think it is extremely doubtful.  I don't see how either a pro-choice or a pro-life amendment would be able to pass the 38 state hurdle.  Plus if Roe is reversed, that will energize the pro-choice side politically, possibly even to the point where an amendment affirming a right to abortion could pass Congress, but not enough to get the three-quarters of states

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

my reply got ate. *sigh*.

GO READ THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITY CLAUSE. Thank you. Then we can continue discussion.

Neither Article IV Section 2 nor Amendment XIV Section 1 are applicable to the unborn.  They aren't citizens under the 14th Amendment, but that gives no constitutional guidance as to whether they are people entitled to due process and equal protection under the laws.

That leaves it up to either the common law or to State law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By what enumerated power does the Federal government have the sole power to set the definition of personhood in your opinion?  Personhood and citizenship are not synonymous.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 14th explicitly says that all born persons are considered citizens. The feds reserve this power to themselves in the 14th to overturn laws on slavery imposed by the states. If the states had control, then they could have maintained slavery laws per Dred Scott.

Actually the 13th prohibits slavery, so the 14th had nothing to do with that.  It also has nothing to do with whether the unborn are people.  I find your constitutional arguments on this and other matters to be incoherent nonsense, and I will waste no more time on them.