Abortion as a States Rights Issue

[jwoodie]

REGARDLESS of its merits, this issue is killing the GOP among a large group of American women voters. Short of ignoring the issue, which is a moral imperative for many people, the only other way to approach it in a salable manner is to make it a States Rights issue.

This would allow the 60% majority who favor some restrictions on abortions to express their views within their states while allowing a plausible escape hatch for the other 40% who could travel to another state if necessary. (Contrary to popular propaganda, state laws do not extend across borders to other states.)

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Its a right, guaranteed by our Constitution.

Control of one's own body is a human right.

It is NOT the right of others to control the bodies of others.

Get the goddamned R out of our bedrooms and our private lives. Believe what you wish on this and **other issues, but just as I do not have the right to control YOUR body, you do not have the right to control mine.

** such as, assisted suicide

 

[RosieS]

The right to an abortion is a Federal law and Federal law trumps state law. All this is is a transparent attempt to dismantle Roe v. Wade incrementally. The GOP does not give womb owners credit for intelligence and thus they keep losing the female voter.

Stay out of wombs. You all do not belong there. Sic semper bullies.

Regards from Rosie

 

[martybegan]

Its a right, guaranteed by our Constitution.

Control of one's own body is a human right.

It is NOT the right of others to control the bodies of others.

Get the goddamned R out of our bedrooms and our private lives. Believe what you wish on this and **other issues, but just as I do not have the right to control YOUR body, you do not have the right to control mine.

** such as, assisted suicide

Under what part of the constitution is abortion a right? I keep trying to find it, but I never can.

 

[martybegan]

The right to an abortion is a Federal law and Federal law trumps state law. All this is is a transparent attempt to dismantle Roe v. Wade incrementally. The GOP does not give womb owners credit for intelligence and thus they keep losing the female voter.

Stay out of wombs. You all do not belong there. Sic semper bullies.

Regards from Rosie

There has never actually been a law passed making abortion legal, all Roe v Wade does is prevent states from banning it prior to a certain time.

If abortion on demand is so popular, why is there no federal law making it legal?

 

[Warrior102]

Libberhoids - soft on terrorists.
Tough on fetuses.

Run with it, asswipes

 

[jwoodie]

The right to an abortion is a Federal law and Federal law trumps state law. All this is is a transparent attempt to dismantle Roe v. Wade incrementally. The GOP does not give womb owners credit for intelligence and thus they keep losing the female voter.

Stay out of wombs. You all do not belong there. Sic semper bullies.

Regards from Rosie

The same could have been said for the Dred Scott and Separate But Equal decisions of the Supreme Court. I assume you support/defend all of its other decisions too?

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you believe that a fetus is a human being and therefore entitled to protection under our legal system, then the argumnets against abortion melt away. Is it a case of the government controling your body? Yes of course. But there are laws against using your body to harm another human being (it's called assault). So if the government can control the way you use your fists in order to protect another human being, then the government has every right to ban an abortion which, many believe, kills another human being.

In terms of the issue's impact on the GOP, I agree. It is killing them with many voters - not just women. But don't we also criticize people who have no convictions? Who just pander to whatever is popular?

I'm not Republican by any stretch of the imagination. But if anti-abortion is their conviction, then I believe they should stick to it and do their best to convince others that their position is the correct one. Not just cede leadership on the issue to their opponents.

Viewing the issue in that light, I think, removes it from the "states' rights" table. Is it legal in ANY state to murder another human being? I know murder is a strong word and in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother perhaps justifiable homicide is a better term. But taking a human life without justification other than it is more convenient for you to have that person dead ... well ... what else would you call it?
Just MHO

 

[eflatminor]

Its a right, guaranteed by our Constitution.

Care to point that out for us?

Control of one's own body is a human right.

How about the right to use one's own body to labor without having the fruits of that labor stolen by central planners? How about the right to control what one puts in their body? Your President Obama disagrees with your premise.

It is NOT the right of others to control the bodies of others.

So you stand against taxing a person's labor?

I do not have the right to control YOUR body, you do not have the right to control mine.

But you have the right to make me pay for your body and your choices?

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

 

[Defiant1]

If you believe that a fetus is a human being and therefore entitled to protection under our legal system, then the argumnets against abortion melt away. Is it a case of the government controling your body? Yes of course. But there are laws against using your body to harm another human being (it's called assault). So if the government can control the way you use your fists in order to protect another human being, then the government has every right to ban an abortion which, many believe, kills another human being.

In terms of the issue's impact on the GOP, I agree. It is killing them with many voters - not just women. But don't we also criticize people who have no convictions? Who just pander to whatever is popular?

I'm not Republican by any stretch of the imagination. But if anti-abortion is their conviction, then I believe they should stick to it and do their best to convince others that their position is the correct one. Not just cede leadership on the issue to their opponents.

Viewing the issue in that light, I think, removes it from the "states' rights" table. Is it legal in ANY state to murder another human being? I know murder is a strong word and in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother perhaps justifiable homicide is a better term. But taking a human life without justification other than it is more convenient for you to have that person dead ... well ... what else would you call it?
Just MHO

A more apropos analogy would be that liberals want women to be able to hire assassins to murder their unborn children and have you and I pay for the hit.

 

[oldfart]

REGARDLESS of its merits, this issue is killing the GOP among a large group of American women voters. Short of ignoring the issue, which is a moral imperative for many people, the only other way to approach it in a salable manner is to make it a States Rights issue.

This would allow the 60% majority who favor some restrictions on abortions to express their views within their states while allowing a plausible escape hatch for the other 40% who could travel to another state if necessary. (Contrary to popular propaganda, state laws do not extend across borders to other states.)

Why stop at the state level? By the same logic would it not be better to devolve to a county level? Then in Texas the cities like Houston and Dallas can have abortion and Jeff Davis County can outlaw it. Yes in Atlanta, no in the rest of Georgia, and so on. Transportation would be easier. If the purpose is to made abortion a local issue, this would be far superior. But if the purpose is to trap large populous states into an all or nothing choice, we might just as well fight it out on a national level.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you believe that a fetus is a human being and therefore entitled to protection under our legal system, then the argumnets against abortion melt away. Is it a case of the government controling your body? Yes of course. But there are laws against using your body to harm another human being (it's called assault). So if the government can control the way you use your fists in order to protect another human being, then the government has every right to ban an abortion which, many believe, kills another human being.

In terms of the issue's impact on the GOP, I agree. It is killing them with many voters - not just women. But don't we also criticize people who have no convictions? Who just pander to whatever is popular?

I'm not Republican by any stretch of the imagination. But if anti-abortion is their conviction, then I believe they should stick to it and do their best to convince others that their position is the correct one. Not just cede leadership on the issue to their opponents.

Viewing the issue in that light, I think, removes it from the "states' rights" table. Is it legal in ANY state to murder another human being? I know murder is a strong word and in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother perhaps justifiable homicide is a better term. But taking a human life without justification other than it is more convenient for you to have that person dead ... well ... what else would you call it?
Just MHO

A more apropos analogy would be that liberals want women to be able to hire assassins to murder their unborn children and have you and I pay for the hit.

I can't tell you the number of times I've been called "liberal" on these boards. But I believe any human being has the right to protection under our legal system.

But rather than shower people with insults and vitriolic language why don't we confess that there are significant inequalities built into our system of procreation and there is just not too much we can do about that. And why not offer compassion and understanding rather than making a woman run a gauntlet of jeers and insults on what is already probably one of the worst days of her life.

I don't want to insult anyone or be insensitive. But if it's a human being, he or she deserves some protecting. Protecting the weaker from being victimized by the stronger is a central theme of our legal system. I can't think of a more appropriate application.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Except, kiddo, abortion is not murder.

If you believe that a fetus is a human being and therefore entitled to protection under our legal system, then the argumnets against abortion melt away. Is it a case of the government controling your body? Yes of course. But there are laws against using your body to harm another human being (it's called assault). So if the government can control the way you use your fists in order to protect another human being, then the government has every right to ban an abortion which, many believe, kills another human being.

In terms of the issue's impact on the GOP, I agree. It is killing them with many voters - not just women. But don't we also criticize people who have no convictions? Who just pander to whatever is popular?

I'm not Republican by any stretch of the imagination. But if anti-abortion is their conviction, then I believe they should stick to it and do their best to convince others that their position is the correct one. Not just cede leadership on the issue to their opponents.

Viewing the issue in that light, I think, removes it from the "states' rights" table. Is it legal in ANY state to murder another human being? I know murder is a strong word and in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother perhaps justifiable homicide is a better term. But taking a human life without justification other than it is more convenient for you to have that person dead ... well ... what else would you call it?
Just MHO

A more apropos analogy would be that liberals want women to be able to hire assassins to murder their unborn children and have you and I pay for the hit.

murder is a legal term. We as a nation decide what is and what is not murder. And yes, you are right. Our nation has decided that abortion is not murder.

But people could change their mind about that. I don't want to see people brow-beaten, insulted, or tormented. And I don't want to see an end-run around the law. I would like for folks to acknowledge our unborn as human beings who deserve protection under our legal system.

 

[NeoTemplar]

Except, kiddo, abortion is not murder.

A more apropos analogy would be that liberals want women to be able to hire assassins to murder their unborn children and have you and I pay for the hit.

murder is a legal term. We as a nation decide what is and what is not murder. And yes, you are right. Our nation has decided that abortion is not murder.

But people could change their mind about that. I don't want to see people brow-beaten, insulted, or tormented. And I don't want to see an end-run around the law. I would like for folks to acknowledge our unborn as human beings who deserve protection under our legal system.

This is where we differ, i believe Murder is more of a moral issue, heres the definition of Murder.


1

: to kill with premeditated malice


2

: to slaughter wantonly : slay


3

a: to put an end to

b: tease, torment

c: mutilate, mangle

 

[Defiant1]

If you believe that a fetus is a human being and therefore entitled to protection under our legal system, then the argumnets against abortion melt away. Is it a case of the government controling your body? Yes of course. But there are laws against using your body to harm another human being (it's called assault). So if the government can control the way you use your fists in order to protect another human being, then the government has every right to ban an abortion which, many believe, kills another human being.

In terms of the issue's impact on the GOP, I agree. It is killing them with many voters - not just women. But don't we also criticize people who have no convictions? Who just pander to whatever is popular?

I'm not Republican by any stretch of the imagination. But if anti-abortion is their conviction, then I believe they should stick to it and do their best to convince others that their position is the correct one. Not just cede leadership on the issue to their opponents.

Viewing the issue in that light, I think, removes it from the "states' rights" table. Is it legal in ANY state to murder another human being? I know murder is a strong word and in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother perhaps justifiable homicide is a better term. But taking a human life without justification other than it is more convenient for you to have that person dead ... well ... what else would you call it?
Just MHO

A more apropos analogy would be that liberals want women to be able to hire assassins to murder their unborn children and have you and I pay for the hit.

I can't tell you the number of times I've been called "liberal" on these boards. But I believe any human being has the right to protection under our legal system.

But rather than shower people with insults and vitriolic language why don't we confess that there are significant inequalities built into our system of procreation and there is just not too much we can do about that. And why not offer compassion and understanding rather than making a woman run a gauntlet of jeers and insults on what is already probably one of the worst days of her life.

I don't want to insult anyone or be insensitive. But if it's a human being, he or she deserves some protecting. Protecting the weaker from being victimized by the stronger is a central theme of our legal system. I can't think of a more appropriate application.

I wasn't calling you a liberal, but since you acknowledge that abortion is ending a human life would you be more comfortable with justifiable homicide or self-defense?

 

[martybegan]

REGARDLESS of its merits, this issue is killing the GOP among a large group of American women voters. Short of ignoring the issue, which is a moral imperative for many people, the only other way to approach it in a salable manner is to make it a States Rights issue.

This would allow the 60% majority who favor some restrictions on abortions to express their views within their states while allowing a plausible escape hatch for the other 40% who could travel to another state if necessary. (Contrary to popular propaganda, state laws do not extend across borders to other states.)

Why stop at the state level? By the same logic would it not be better to devolve to a county level? Then in Texas the cities like Houston and Dallas can have abortion and Jeff Davis County can outlaw it. Yes in Atlanta, no in the rest of Georgia, and so on. Transportation would be easier. If the purpose is to made abortion a local issue, this would be far superior. But if the purpose is to trap large populous states into an all or nothing choice, we might just as well fight it out on a national level.

its because power in this country originally started at the state level, and is part of most states consitutions. States devolve authority over certain things to the county level, which can then devolve things to the town/parrish level, and then down to the village/hamlet level. Each state decides this within its consitution and state laws, and includes exceptions for entities such as boroughs townships, and cities.

The consitution originally left everything except certain tasks and basic rights to the states, keeping only what was nessasary to provide common defense, common commerce, and a basic set of rules so that the states were not entirely foreign to each other. It also determined how the federal government would be run and set up.

So since a state makes up the rules for lower levels of organization, the state government, via the legislature decides what rules it makes, and what rules it leaves to the counties and town. Therefore a state could keep all decsions regarding the legality of abortion at the state level, and force the lower levels to comply.

 

[jwoodie]

If you believe that a fetus is a human being and therefore entitled to protection under our legal system, then the argumnets against abortion melt away. Is it a case of the government controling your body? Yes of course. But there are laws against using your body to harm another human being (it's called assault). So if the government can control the way you use your fists in order to protect another human being, then the government has every right to ban an abortion which, many believe, kills another human being.

In terms of the issue's impact on the GOP, I agree. It is killing them with many voters - not just women. But don't we also criticize people who have no convictions? Who just pander to whatever is popular?

I'm not Republican by any stretch of the imagination. But if anti-abortion is their conviction, then I believe they should stick to it and do their best to convince others that their position is the correct one. Not just cede leadership on the issue to their opponents.

Viewing the issue in that light, I think, removes it from the "states' rights" table. Is it legal in ANY state to murder another human being? I know murder is a strong word and in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother perhaps justifiable homicide is a better term. But taking a human life without justification other than it is more convenient for you to have that person dead ... well ... what else would you call it?
Just MHO

Actually, murder is a violation of State, not Federal, law and states are free to determine the definition and punishment for this crime. Even more on point, state laws can and do vary regarding whether attacking a pregnant woman and causing the death of the fetus constitutes murder. Ironic, especially if she were on her way to an abortion clinic.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you believe that a fetus is a human being and therefore entitled to protection under our legal system, then the argumnets against abortion melt away. Is it a case of the government controling your body? Yes of course. But there are laws against using your body to harm another human being (it's called assault). So if the government can control the way you use your fists in order to protect another human being, then the government has every right to ban an abortion which, many believe, kills another human being.

In terms of the issue's impact on the GOP, I agree. It is killing them with many voters - not just women. But don't we also criticize people who have no convictions? Who just pander to whatever is popular?

I'm not Republican by any stretch of the imagination. But if anti-abortion is their conviction, then I believe they should stick to it and do their best to convince others that their position is the correct one. Not just cede leadership on the issue to their opponents.

Viewing the issue in that light, I think, removes it from the "states' rights" table. Is it legal in ANY state to murder another human being? I know murder is a strong word and in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother perhaps justifiable homicide is a better term. But taking a human life without justification other than it is more convenient for you to have that person dead ... well ... what else would you call it?
Just MHO

Actually, murder is a violation of State, not Federal, law and states are free to determine the definition and punishment for this crime. Even more on point, state laws can and do vary regarding whether attacking a pregnant woman and causing the death of the fetus constitutes murder. Ironic, especially if she were on her way to an abortion clinic.

You are absolutely right - States are the jurisdictions that write murder laws - I was just trying to point out that all of them do have laws against it.

Again, I really don't want to be argumentative or to insult anyone. But I think the entire issue hinges on the question: "when does human life begin." In most of our legal definitions, when we are uncertain, we tend to err on the side of life. So if there is a question as to when human life begins - or a difficulty in pin-pointing that moment - wouldn't it be more in keeping with our national values to err on the side of the life?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A more apropos analogy would be that liberals want women to be able to hire assassins to murder their unborn children and have you and I pay for the hit.

Why repeatedly muddy the real issue with this lie?

 

[nodoginnafight]

A more apropos analogy would be that liberals want women to be able to hire assassins to murder their unborn children and have you and I pay for the hit.

I can't tell you the number of times I've been called "liberal" on these boards. But I believe any human being has the right to protection under our legal system.

But rather than shower people with insults and vitriolic language why don't we confess that there are significant inequalities built into our system of procreation and there is just not too much we can do about that. And why not offer compassion and understanding rather than making a woman run a gauntlet of jeers and insults on what is already probably one of the worst days of her life.

I don't want to insult anyone or be insensitive. But if it's a human being, he or she deserves some protecting. Protecting the weaker from being victimized by the stronger is a central theme of our legal system. I can't think of a more appropriate application.

I wasn't calling you a liberal, but since you acknowledge that abortion is ending a human life would you be more comfortable with justifiable homicide or self-defense?

Oh I diodn't mean to imply I thought you were calling me a liberal. It just struck me that there are probably a lot of posters on the boards that would keel over if they saw me defending a "conservative" position.

But imho it's not an issue of conservative, or liberal, or of religion. To me, it's a simple question of law. At what point do human beings merit the protections of our legal system?