Federalism and Abortion rights

[task0778]

Somebody tell me what is so bad about allowing each state to legislate it's own abortion rights. Why should the citizens living in any other state have any say at all in whatever a particular state decides should be legal? If California wants to allow abortions right up to birth, that ought to be their call. If Texas wants to ban abortions altogether then that ought to be their call too.

The citizens of a state can vote out the state politicians who passed laws that they don't like in favor of someone else who will change the laws, that's how it should work. If it doesn't then that responsibility falls on the voters on that state, but NOT anyone living elsewhere.

 

[night_son]

Somebody tell me what is so bad about allowing each state to legislate it's own abortion rights. Why should the citizens living in any other state have any say at all in whatever a particular state decides should be legal? If California wants to allow abortions right up to birth, that ought to be their call. If Texas wants to ban abortions altogether then that ought to be their call too.

The citizens of a state can vote out the state politicians who passed laws that they don't like in favor of someone else who will change the laws, that's how it should work. If it doesn't then that responsibility falls on the voters on that state, but NOT anyone living elsewhere.

Somebody tell me why so many of my fellow Americans believe their state governments are so much purer, kinder than the federal? Why do so many of my fellow Americans seem to identify more with the state in which they were born or live than as AMERICANS? Further, how can the actions of a state government be seen as less sinful (legalized child murder) than similar laws at the federal level? Hypocrisy and grand apathy and nothing but excuses to justify high evil running rampant these days.

 

[task0778]

Somebody tell me why so many of my fellow Americans believe their state governments are so much purer, kinder than the federal?

They aren't, but that isn't the question. The question basically is about what the federal gov't can and can't do.

The US Constitution is supposed to delineate the powers and functions that the federal gov't has and can do, and all of our federal statutes are supposed to be rooted in the Constitution. Which means if it ain't in the Constitution then the federal gov't has no power or authority over the applicable issue. And in fact, the 10th Amendment tells us that if the applicable issue isn't in the US Constitution, then the issue is supposed to fall to the states.

Why do so many of my fellow Americans seem to identify more with the state in which they were born or live than as AMERICANS?

Solutions that work in one state may not be applicable to all of them. Do you want the party you do not support to be able to determine everything that affects your life in the state you live in?

how can the actions of a state government be seen as less sinful (legalized child murder) than similar laws at the federal level?

At least at the state level you can move to another state, which is a lot easier and cheaper than moving to another country.


Look - we have mechanisms to change the US Constitution if enough people believe a change is necessary. That's why we have so many Constitutional Amendments, and there is such a thing as a Constitutional Convention too. The problem with abortion is that it's pretty close to a 50-50 issue, there are about as may pro-lifers as there are pro-choicers. I personally don't see any reason why the federal gov't should have anything to do with that issue, since there is no indication anywhere in our Constitution that has to do with abortion. Which basically should lead to only one alternative: let the individual states decide how to handle it.

 

[night_son]

They aren't, but that isn't the question. The question basically is about what the federal gov't can and can't do.

The US Constitution is supposed to delineate the powers and functions that the federal gov't has and can do, and all of our federal statutes are supposed to be rooted in the Constitution. Which means if it ain't in the Constitution then the federal gov't has no power or authority over the applicable issue. And in fact, the 10th Amendment tells us that if the applicable issue isn't in the US Constitution, then the issue is supposed to fall to the states.





Solutions that work in one state may not be applicable to all of them. Do you want the party you do not support to be able to determine everything that affects your life in the state you live in?




At least at the state level you can move to another state, which is a lot easier and cheaper than moving to another country.


Look - we have mechanisms to change the US Constitution if enough people believe a change is necessary. That's why we have so many Constitutional Amendments, and there is such a thing as a Constitutional Convention too. The problem with abortion is that it's pretty close to a 50-50 issue, there are about as may pro-lifers as there are pro-choicers. I personally don't see any reason why the federal gov't should have anything to do with that issue, since there is no indication anywhere in our Constitution that has to do with abortion. Which basically should lead to only one alternative: let the individual states decide how to handle it.

I loosely agree with your excellent response—up to a point. But what about the strictly moral or immoral side of the argument? Whether it is federal or state government giving the okay to legally mass murder unborn human beings really doesn't seem to make much difference, as doing that is still pretty damn evil any way you slice it. I also abhor the concept of turning one's back on evil or, as you say, running away from it to some other state where it is not permitted. Great evils, legalized, should be an afront to all Americans everywhere and should exist nowhere in our contiguous imperial territory. Just my opinion, of course. Then again, we live in an anything goes sort of civilization, so moral arguments made in a world that now thrives on moral relativism are pretty much dead upon arrival . . .

 

[task0778]

It's pretty hard to legislate morality, or immorality at any level of gov't cuz there's always going to be people that do not agree with whatever the consensus is and what the law says. True, some countries do not permit abortions, maybe most of them don't I'm not sure. But in this country, for now maybe the best we can do is legislate it the way most people in your state want it to be and let God sort out the evildoers.

 

[BackAgain]

I am thrilled with the SCOTUS decision if it pans out as per the draft. I am not thrilled as much with the idea that the States by their own respective laws can make legal the snuffing-out of human life. I think your own OP question grapples with the same basic concern:

if Americans claim, as part of our foundational beliefs, that there exists a fundamental right to life, then why is it ok to shunt the issue off to the various States? It’s ok to deny the preborn their right to life in NY, but it’s not ok in Oklahoma? There is more to “human life” than some varying legal definitions of “person” in the law books of the respective States.

 

[task0778]

if Americans claim, as part of our foundational beliefs, that there exists a fundamental right to life, then why is it ok to shunt the issue off to the various States?

From a purely legal pov, the point at which that fundamental right to life starts is open to question. Since that right is nowhere specified in the US Constitution, the federal gov't does not have the authority to create it or make that determination. Ergo, the issue may be addressed at the state level according to the wishes and beliefs of the people therein.

 

[martybegan]

Somebody tell me what is so bad about allowing each state to legislate it's own abortion rights. Why should the citizens living in any other state have any say at all in whatever a particular state decides should be legal? If California wants to allow abortions right up to birth, that ought to be their call. If Texas wants to ban abortions altogether then that ought to be their call too.

The citizens of a state can vote out the state politicians who passed laws that they don't like in favor of someone else who will change the laws, that's how it should work. If it doesn't then that responsibility falls on the voters on that state, but NOT anyone living elsewhere.

I would add a caveat that anyone living in a State with a ban (over 18, or with the consent of a parent) who goes to another State without a ban cannot be punished by the State you live in.

A State's power ends at it's borders. period.

 

[BackAgain]

From a purely legal pov, the point at which that fundamental right to life starts is open to question. Since that right is nowhere specified in the US Constitution, the federal gov't does not have the authority to create it or make that determination. Ergo, the issue may be addressed at the state level according to the wishes and beliefs of the people therein.

Life begins at conception. It is a basic scientific fact. The unique dna can be nothing else but a human being. Once we recognize that the product of conception of a woman’s ovum by a man’s spermatozoa is a human life, everything else follows.