The nearer the government is to the people, the better it responds to their desires and preferences. In dealing with the federal government each of us is roughly 1/250,000,000th of the population. In Wyoming each citizen is roughly 1/500,000th of the population. Would the government in Cheyenne or the government in Washington be more apt to even hear the complaint of a single citizen?
We are supposed to have fifty sovereign governments in this nation and one derived government acting as their agent in affairs with foreign powers and problems with each other.
I, personally, have my own reasons for not approving of abortion. I would not require you to live by my rules, I would not accept living by yours. When you give or allow any government to have sovereignty you have just allowed it to tell you how to live to at least some extent. I want that government to be small and very responsive to its citizens. On every issue I want it to plainly hear its majority while it protects its minorities.
Liberals are always championing diversity, yet they actually want total uniformity. They can never have their uniformity in each of all fifty states, knowing this; they desire an all-controlling federal government.
Ardent liberals and conservatives have exactly the same view of government's role regarding abortion. Liberals want unquestioned approval, while conservatives want consistent denial--what they share is a desire for the government to give us "proper" laws affecting everyone. Both want government to exercise control when in fact that government does not have either the moral authority or the Constitutional power in that particular regard.
Obviously there is no place in the Constitution as amended where anyone is given "permission" to do anything. The document is not about what Americans may do; rather it is about what government cannot do.
The Supreme Court "found" a "right to privacy"; they shouldn't have had to look very hard to locate it. It's a common thread in the Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. That, however, has nothing to do with abortion.
Abortion has been around for a very long time, and frowned upon for much of that time for several reasons--the death of an unborn child not the least among them.
Under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments the federal government has no power or authority to prohibit or restrict abortion; likewise, it has no power or authority to authorize or allow abortion. Considering these two Amendments, that power and authority must rest with the states if they choose to exercise it, or with the conscience and beliefs of the individual person.
The fact that any or all states have acted to prohibit or allow the act does not in any way give the United States Supreme Court the authority to hear a case which has no Constitutional merit. On that basis, Roe v. Wade should be overturned--the issue is simply not the province of the Court.
By accepting Roe v. Wade, the abortion rights advocates are giving the government control of the reproductive systems of the nation's women. Silly as it sounds--one of those surreal moments--Thurmond and Kennedy are on the same side in this, both argue that government may give or deny permission.
As a general statement I do not approve of abortion, I approve even less of government usurpation of power. This should be a state and/or personal issue--never any of the federal government's business.