>

Personally, I’d want to terminate a pregnancy knowing the kid will be born with disabilities, and Downs is a disability. 
Is it wrong to not won’t to bring life to this world that can’t reasonably take care of itself at any point? Seems more cruel to bring that life into the world just to be a second class citizen until they die.
I still think it should fail the establishment clause as being denied an abortion is very much being forced to adhere to a religious dogma that is not your own. (So IMO the "Abortion Ritual" direction the Satanic Temple has taken is interesting.) >

That’s like saying preventing people from stealing is making them follow the Ten Commandments >

No. The anti abortion stance in firmly rooted in religious belief. It all centers on life beinging at conception based on an interpretation of the bible. >

You can theoretically be anti-abortion and an atheist. Do they exist I mean I am sure at least one does. The government determining what views are and aren't based on religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause. >

The anti-abortion groups are not arguing from a scientific standpoint. They have never presented anything other then moral and religious arguments. As soon as we get a peer reviewed scientific study that says life begins at conception, they can use that as the basis for their argument. >

Involuntary servitude isn't going to fly at all.  Right off the bat they'll say women consent to pregnancy when they decide to have sex (and will ignore anyone who asks about rape and failed contraception).  
Reasonable people need to start agitating about the Ninth Amendment.  For fifty years people were excercising this right, supporting this right, protesting for it, voting for it, voting against restrictions on it.  If that's not a right being "retained by the people" then what the hell is? >

I'll push you further.
Anyone who says "there's no right to x in the constitution" is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.
The Bill of rights was not meant to limit rights, but to ensure some are readily called out for their obviousness.
If the government wants to limit a right, it needs to show a compelling reason. "It's not in the constitution" is a bass ackward reading of what is literally in black and white. >


Anyone who says “there’s no right to x in the constitution” is intentionally misreading/ignoring the 9th.

I think you mean the 10th.  The 10th Amendment limits the government’s powers to what they already have on paper.  It’s the “if there’s no law saying otherwise, it’s legal” right.
And, yeah, the 9th Amendment says no new power of government can come at the expense of existing rights and powers.  Therefore, a woman’s right to her own body (which needs no explicit law beyond the 10th) can’t be taken away by legislative action. >


I meant what I said.

Then you're wrong in saying it.

[9th Amendment quote]

This means the government can't take existing rights, yes, but your assertion that the 9th Amendment is what says people have rights that aren't specifically designated by law is incorrect.

The 10th says the USG only has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, or by subsequent laws

So when I said "the 10th Amendment limits the government's powers to what they already have on paper," what did you think I meant?
Also...


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


So the federal government has its authority (as dictated by law), the states have their respective authorities (also as dictated by law), and anything that isn't covered by the other two is a power retained by the citizens.  Explain to me how the sentence you quoted with highlights is incorrect.
While you're at it, if my interpretation is incorrect, tell me what law makes it legal for you to scratch your ass. >

Your reading conflates powers of the government and rights of the people. 
The 9th covers rights of the people.
The 10th covers powers of government. >


Your reading conflates powers of government and rights of the people.

Legal powers are rights when discussing acts performed by people. >

The government is not a person. >

It is when it is a litigant in a suit >

Oh that 13th Amendment, I knew would have to pop its head up at some point. >

The US constitution is the ultimate Rorschach test. >

Pretty spot on definition actually. But part of the reason it exists as such is becasue of people trying desperately to twist it back and forth in ways that aren't in the clear text, and often for the purposes of limiting rights at the federal level (like what the current SCOTUS did for Dobbs/Abortion). 
Except funnily enough we have an amendment that basically says anything that's not explicitly in the text shouldn't be construed as "not protected" or "not a right": The Ninth Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Interpreted liberally, this could mean that the 2nd amendment only stipulates that people have an absolute right to own a firearm, but nowhere does it imply that there can't be limits on what types of firearms those are. In other words, an assault weapons ban with the goal of preserving life (you know, part of the life, liberty and happiness goal, in theory a right that the 9th amendment should protect since the constitution doesn't explicitly say everyone has a right to actually live) does nothing to say you can't still have handguns or shotguns, etc... 
But that ship has pretty much already flown, and the 9th amendment at this point basically doesn't seem to exist for all practical purposes. >


that ship has pretty much already flown 

dudeeee >

OK, the bird has sailed. Better? >

Pretty sure the phrase is 'the fish has walked'. >

Pretty sure the phrase is aightImmaHeadOut.jpg
(Because my life goal is to encourage the transition of English to a completely metaphoric and referential language) >

Temba, his arms open. >

If the pregnancy interferes with the mother's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then abortion should be legal.
Also, if the fetus is defective, then the resulting child won't be able to enjoy that right.
It's kind of a no-brainer if you're not a complete ideologue. >

How do you feel about checking the baby for genetic abnormalities? Is it ethical to abort a baby because it has say, Down syndrome? What if we could confidently say a child would be autistic?
Feels like eugenics to me, unless the baby would simply not be able to survive.