States rights and protecting unborn life

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by manifold, Oct 8, 2012.

  1. manifold
    Offline

    manifold Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    48,784
    Thanks Received:
    7,239
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    your dreams
    Ratings:
    +20,927
    I’ve read a number of rhetoric filled, but ultimately poorly thought out proposals to ‘solve’ the abortion debate simply by leaving it up to the states to decide. According to this fatally simplistic solution, states that want to ban abortion can do so, and women from those states who want to get one can simply travel to a state where it is legal and get the procedure. Sounds almost rational on the surface, but under this solution, states don’t actually retain the right to protect unborn life. All they can do is make abortion more costly and inconvenient (prohibitively even for some), but at the end of the day they don’t retain the ultimate right to protect unborn life.

    States would only retain ultimate right to protect unborn life if they could prosecute residents who travel out of state to have an abortion.

    By definition, in order for something to be a solution, it has to actually solve a problem. So if states can only ban abortion within their own borders but cannot prevent residents from getting one out of state, exactly what problem does this solution solve?
     
  2. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,767
    Thanks Received:
    1,287
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,912
    Sounds like another disingenuous pro-abortion argument. States can make their own laws on any number of subjects, regardless of whether other states agree. How about speed limits? Your argument also fails when applied at the Federal level: Should the U.S. decline to pass laws regarding child pornography because it can't enforce them in other countries?
     
  3. manifold
    Offline

    manifold Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    48,784
    Thanks Received:
    7,239
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    your dreams
    Ratings:
    +20,927
    In that case, allow me to put it another way. If we left abortion up to the states, how would the SC rule on a state law that allows them to prosecute someone for taking a fetus out of state to get it aborted? Do you think a state would retain the right to enforce such a law?
     
  4. Swagger
    Offline

    Swagger Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    12,161
    Thanks Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    European Far Right
    Ratings:
    +5,512
    What about [American] women who seek an abortion abroad? In Europe, for instance.
     
  5. Steelplate
    Offline

    Steelplate Bluesman

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    7,773
    Thanks Received:
    931
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central PA
    Ratings:
    +932
    I understand what I'm about to say doesn't exactly jibe with the OP....but....

    Don't you think that due to the very nature of the subject of abortion, that both sides come to a consensus? Like first trimester only or something......I mean, it's never going to satisfy the hard core on either side.....but, perhaps if a consensus could be reached on a National level as the minimum allowable timeframe, the States could adjust off of that.

    States that don't want to allow the procedure, could find other ways to discourage the practice. Cost was already mentioned.....they could assign fees to the procedure to make it cost prohibitive, they could create red tape to make it more difficult....like mandatory counseling or something.

    States that tend to fall into the "pro-choice" realm, could even expand upon the minimum.....offer the procedure free to people without means, etc....
     
  6. Grandma
    Offline

    Grandma Geezer Chick Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    Messages:
    8,668
    Thanks Received:
    2,658
    Trophy Points:
    360
    Location:
    Under The Sky
    Ratings:
    +6,707
    The argument is not up for the states' debate. The Supreme Court ruled that individual women were the only ones with the right to make the decision on whether or not to abort.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. earthmuffin
    Offline

    earthmuffin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    48
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +8
    I don't understand why it's any better for women's rights to be taken away at the state level than it is at the federal level.

    There are just some things that have no place being voted on, a women's right to choose is among them.
     
  8. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    Because it isn’t about abortion, it never was. It’s about expanding the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

    Whether one has his civil liberties isn’t determined by his state of residence, nor is it determined by majority rule. A woman doesn’t have a ‘right’ to an abortion, she like all citizens has a right to privacy, and in the context of that right the state may not place an undue burden on her exercising that or any other fundamental right.

    Thus the fact that a ‘states’ rights’ solution would not indeed end abortion Nationwide is of no consequence to those supposedly opposed to the practice.
     
  9. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,767
    Thanks Received:
    1,287
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,912
    Duh, the issue at hand is whether these ridiculous SCOTUS decisions should be overturned and the matter of abortion returned to the States as prescribed in the Constitution. Simply quoting them is a transparently circular argument.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,495
    Thanks Received:
    4,017
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,046
    The states wouldnt be able to, as their sovergenity is limited by territory, not by the person occupying it (or another state's territory). Plus any violation of law between states is handled at the federal level (as is proper in the constitution).
     

Share This Page