RE: I HATE THIS

Let's see. I said pro-lifers see abortion as murder (depriving a person of the fundamental right to life).

Truthfully, I cannot derive from the æther proof that murder is wrong. If a person is walking down a street killing people; it is customary for the police to shoot back.

I do not have a grand philosophical argument for the policeman's action.

The founders seem to be adherents of ideas like natural law and common law. Essentially, in the long western tradition, people have tried to develop laws that work well for humans.

When one looks at the classical liberal tradition, one finds people engaged in numerous debates about ethics. The debates often contradict each other.

The legal tradition is mesh of legal precedents and rulings. The founders clearly wanted a deliberative legislatures at the state and federal level to oversee and occasionally modify the laws.

The founders valued individual rights, but did not require the creation of grand philosophical systems to justify each law.

The founders appear to be following a middle path. They wanted a combination of legislatures, courts and a large private sector. They valued compromise and deliberation.

So, I see the law that you hate as a good compromise between those who see abortion as murder and want courts to try abortionists as murderers and those who believe that women are self-sovereign and have control over their body.