Comment: Not likely under our current (or past) federal structure

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Under RP's strict definition (see in situ)

Not likely under our current (or past) federal structure

Every state has its own "bill of rights" contained in the state constitution, recognizing and protecting generally the same basic set of inherent individual rights. In order for a state to legalize murder, it would have to amend its constitution according to its own internal processes. This is extremely unlikely all by itself. But even if it were to happen, it would then be at odds with the federal Constitution, at which point the correct procedural thing to do from a strict Constitutional perspective would--I believe--be to promptly kick the state out of the union, and optionally send troops to defend the innocent from the aggressors (a "national security" argument could clearly be made if former U.S. citizens are being legally murdered right in the middle of North America). Ron Paul's position on the 14th Amendment and Incorporation Doctrine is relevant here and very interesting. (Caution: it may tie your brain in knots at first.)

The core debate here is really about when life begins though, not so much whether murder is okay (even if we see it that way). We define it one way, they define it another. They don't see it as legalized murder because they don't think it's murder in the first place. Until this question is answered in a universal legal ruling (quite a task), any anti-abortion law is not likely to be very effective.