Could we ban abortion on the state level?

[ihopehefails]

The strategy in my opinon should be for each state to enact seperate methods for banning abortion without interfering with a woman's right to choose. For example, one state can ban doctors from providing abortions yet not punish women for recieving them thus maintaining her right to choose. This prevents a court battle that would attempt to use the Roe V Wade precedence to block anti-abortion laws.

Another state can enact a head tax for every abortion provided, another state can use its power of eminant domain and take abortion clinics specifically and turn them into parks. It can be called the parks restoration act.

The point is by creating 30 different scenarios to ban abortion if forces opponents to come up with 30 unique defenses and one of those defenses is bound to fail and once it does the other 29 states can implement that law that successfully bans abortions.

 

[William Joyce]

The Court wouldn't have much problem dealing with "tricky" abortion bans, but it's true that Roe v. Wade is one bad decision.

I was reading the Pennsylvania criminal statutes last night. There's a whole section on abortion. But you never see abortion prosecutions. Funny.

 

[Modbert]

The strategy in my opinon should be for each state to enact seperate methods for banning abortion without interfering with a woman's right to choose. For example, one state can ban doctors from providing abortions yet not punish women for recieving them thus maintaining her right to choose. This prevents a court battle that would attempt to use the Roe V Wade precedence to block anti-abortion laws.

Another state can enact a head tax for every abortion provided, another state can use its power of eminant domain and take abortion clinics specifically and turn them into parks. It can be called the parks restoration act.

The point is by creating 30 different scenarios to ban abortion if forces opponents to come up with 30 unique defenses and one of those defenses is bound to fail and once it does the other 29 states can implement that law that successfully bans abortions.

Faux Conservative.

 

[ihopehefails]

The strategy in my opinon should be for each state to enact seperate methods for banning abortion without interfering with a woman's right to choose. For example, one state can ban doctors from providing abortions yet not punish women for recieving them thus maintaining her right to choose. This prevents a court battle that would attempt to use the Roe V Wade precedence to block anti-abortion laws.

Another state can enact a head tax for every abortion provided, another state can use its power of eminant domain and take abortion clinics specifically and turn them into parks. It can be called the parks restoration act.

The point is by creating 30 different scenarios to ban abortion if forces opponents to come up with 30 unique defenses and one of those defenses is bound to fail and once it does the other 29 states can implement that law that successfully bans abortions.

Faux Conservative.

I'm sorry for stopping the murder of the unborn. You guys act like we are trying to stop birth control measures like the pill or the condomn. Those are a personal choice someone makes and should not be stopped but once a life starts no one should have the right to terminate that life.

You obviosly feel otherwise which is why you should embrace federalism since the other 20 states can allow that to happen and if it is the state where you live then your right to have an abortion is protected. Can you accept that or do you have determine how everyone else is going to live at the same time?

 

[GHook93]

Sorry bud Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood are two cases very settled on the subject. A women's right to choose, although may be restricted (such no late term abortions), can NOT be unduely infringed on!

 

[ihopehefails]

Sorry bud Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood are two cases very settled on the subject. A women's right to choose, although may be restricted (such no late term abortions), can be unduely infringed on!

Would this be infringing on a woman's right to choose since she still has the power to make the choice since their is no law banning her choice? However, powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states and eminent domain is not given to the federal government so it remains in the hands of the state government. The federal government has no power to interfere in how that power is to be implemented.

 

[Immanuel]

What good would banning it in 30 states do, if it leaves 20 open to abortions. A woman that wants an abortion will simply cross state lines and have an abortion. What is to stop her? You might be able to stop an non-parental adult from taking an underage woman across state lines for an abortion, but that would be limited situations.

Abortions have to be banned, if in fact that is even the right way to go about this with today's technology, in all 50 states or the entire attempt is completely worthless and with states like New York and California being heavily left wing, I don't think we can accomplish the banning of abortions in all 50 states.

Our best bet and probably the only bet is through education. We have to teach our children that the life in the womb is precious and loved. We have to teach our young adults, that sex has its consequences and that sex before marriage is not always the right thing and that waiting to have sex until marriage is neither wrong, nor impossible to achieve.

The complete and utter elimination of all abortions would be a fabulous accomplishment, but for the time being we are fighting a losing battle if we are fighting to make it illegal.

Immie

 

[Luissa]

so you do want the government involved in people's lives.

YOu don't want them to tell you what to do, but it is okay if the government tells someone else what to do with their body.

 

[Luissa]

What good would banning it in 30 states do, if it leaves 20 open to abortions. A woman that wants an abortion will simply cross state lines and have an abortion. What is to stop her? You might be able to stop an non-parental adult from taking an underage woman across state lines for an abortion, but that would be limited situations.

Abortions have to be banned, if in fact that is even the right way to go about this with today's technology, in all 50 states or the entire attempt is completely worthless and with states like New York and California being heavily left wing, I don't think we can accomplish the banning of abortions in all 50 states.

Our best bet and probably the only bet is through education. We have to teach our children that the life in the womb is precious and loved. We have to teach our young adults, that sex has its consequences and that sex before marriage is not always the right thing and that waiting to have sex until marriage is neither wrong, nor impossible to achieve.

The complete and utter elimination of all abortions would be a fabulous accomplishment, but for the time being we are fighting a losing battle if we are fighting to make it illegal.

Immie

So how is Never Never Land?

 

[Immanuel]

What good would banning it in 30 states do, if it leaves 20 open to abortions. A woman that wants an abortion will simply cross state lines and have an abortion. What is to stop her? You might be able to stop an non-parental adult from taking an underage woman across state lines for an abortion, but that would be limited situations.

Abortions have to be banned, if in fact that is even the right way to go about this with today's technology, in all 50 states or the entire attempt is completely worthless and with states like New York and California being heavily left wing, I don't think we can accomplish the banning of abortions in all 50 states.

Our best bet and probably the only bet is through education. We have to teach our children that the life in the womb is precious and loved. We have to teach our young adults, that sex has its consequences and that sex before marriage is not always the right thing and that waiting to have sex until marriage is neither wrong, nor impossible to achieve.

The complete and utter elimination of all abortions would be a fabulous accomplishment, but for the time being we are fighting a losing battle if we are fighting to make it illegal.

Immie

So how is Never Never Land?

I see, you don't believe in education... that figures coming from a lefty.

Immie

 

[Luissa]

What good would banning it in 30 states do, if it leaves 20 open to abortions. A woman that wants an abortion will simply cross state lines and have an abortion. What is to stop her? You might be able to stop an non-parental adult from taking an underage woman across state lines for an abortion, but that would be limited situations.

Abortions have to be banned, if in fact that is even the right way to go about this with today's technology, in all 50 states or the entire attempt is completely worthless and with states like New York and California being heavily left wing, I don't think we can accomplish the banning of abortions in all 50 states.

Our best bet and probably the only bet is through education. We have to teach our children that the life in the womb is precious and loved. We have to teach our young adults, that sex has its consequences and that sex before marriage is not always the right thing and that waiting to have sex until marriage is neither wrong, nor impossible to achieve.

The complete and utter elimination of all abortions would be a fabulous accomplishment, but for the time being we are fighting a losing battle if we are fighting to make it illegal.

Immie

So how is Never Never Land?

I see, you don't believe in education... that figures coming from a lefty.

Immie

No, I just live in the real world.

 

[Immanuel]

So how is Never Never Land?

I see, you don't believe in education... that figures coming from a lefty.

Immie

No, I just live in the real world.

Please what is it that you disagree with me about?

I'm serious because I don't think I said anything that a lefty such as your self would disagree with. I was expecting trouble from the right not the left.

Immie

 

[Bern80]

so you do want the government involved in people's lives.

YOu don't want them to tell you what to do, but it is okay if the government tells someone else what to do with their body.

No, it's the government telling you what you CAN'T do to someone elses body (i.e. kill it). That's the only way abortion can be justified because pretty much everyone here would agree that taking an innocent human life is wrong and should be legally prosecutable. The only way a pro-abortionist can rationalize their way around that is to define a fetus as something less than a human life (despite all evidence to the contrary).

 

[JakeStarkey]

ihef and beern, you ignored "so you do want the government involved in people's lives."

Any other answer than 'yes' or 'no' can only be logically construed as 'yes.'

Do remember Rush is right when he says that, "words have meanings."

You are both for federal intrusion into private lives at the local level, got that.

 

[GHook93]

Sorry bud Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood are two cases very settled on the subject. A women's right to choose, although may be restricted (such no late term abortions), can be unduely infringed on!

Would this be infringing on a woman's right to choose since she still has the power to make the choice since their is no law banning her choice? However, powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states and eminent domain is not given to the federal government so it remains in the hands of the state government. The federal government has no power to interfere in how that power is to be implemented.

Always with the 10th amendment. If you attend law school you will see it a right with not teeth. Basically anything the Federal government wants to rule on they can.

The premise behind Roe v. Wade was a right to privacy is a fundamental right that can't be infringed on. Although the constitution doesn't directly protect privacy, the court found its within the prenumbras of the amendments of the bill of right, specially 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th.

 

[rdean]

The strategy in my opinon should be for each state to enact seperate methods for banning abortion without interfering with a woman's right to choose. For example, one state can ban doctors from providing abortions yet not punish women for recieving them thus maintaining her right to choose. This prevents a court battle that would attempt to use the Roe V Wade precedence to block anti-abortion laws.

Another state can enact a head tax for every abortion provided, another state can use its power of eminant domain and take abortion clinics specifically and turn them into parks. It can be called the parks restoration act.

The point is by creating 30 different scenarios to ban abortion if forces opponents to come up with 30 unique defenses and one of those defenses is bound to fail and once it does the other 29 states can implement that law that successfully bans abortions.

So what happens to the "unwanted children"? Do we leave them in those "parks"?

 

[George Costanza]

but once a life starts no one should have the right to terminate that life.

I agree with you on that one - but, golly, when does a life start?

I understand this has been a bit of a debating point between the two sides on this issue.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

cept you forget that little fact that no state will ban abortions. that's like saying "if we come up with 30 ways to ban popsicles, then it has to stick somewhere!" keep on using that thinking organ of yours

so you do want the government involved in people's lives.

YOu don't want them to tell you what to do, but it is okay if the government tells someone else what to do with their body.

insightful.

That's the only way abortion can be justified because pretty much everyone here would agree that taking an innocent human life is wrong and should be legally prosecutable. The only way a pro-abortionist can rationalize their way around that is to define a fetus as something less than a human life (despite all evidence to the contrary).

no one is "pro-abortion". no one. not even the doctors that perform them. get that idea out of your head. while I agree taking a human life is wrong, I'm guessing you don't even know enough biology to understand what point a fetus is viable outside the mother's womb. as in, you don't even know when it can be considered human. cuz i'll tell you, a blob of cells is not human YET. So while killing a human is bad, killing a not-human-yet is not.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The strategy in my opinon should be for each state to enact seperate methods for banning abortion without interfering with a woman's right to choose. For example, one state can ban doctors from providing abortions yet not punish women for recieving them thus maintaining her right to choose. This prevents a court battle that would attempt to use the Roe V Wade precedence to block anti-abortion laws.

I don't think you understand the law.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm sorry for stopping the murder of the unborn. You guys act like we are trying to stop birth control measures like the pill or the condomn.

Actually the pill can cause an abortion. In the rare case that an egg is produced while a woman is on the pill, as a 2nd line of defense, the pill prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine walls - resulting in an abortion.

Birth Control Pill Causes Abortions -- Pro-Life America, Celebs expose abortion! Celebrities, Speakers, TV, Radio, Videos and Literature to help save moms and babies from the pain and suffering of abortion. Save sex for marriage and choose life, not


So you need to outlaw the birth control pill as well or you're a hypocrite. Life begins at conception, right?