Should Keeping Abortions legal be left up to the States?
macgyver06
Posts: 2,500
I dont think so.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
So leaving it to the federal government is?
Not really. Personally, I believe that every woman has the right to make that choice. But if the government is going to get involved at some level, the appropriate level of involvement is at the state level. If we want to make abortion a federal right, that should be done by amending the Constitution.
There is no other solution.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
why not the city level?
What? "There is no other solution"? How silly. There are lots of other solutions. There's certainly leaving it to the states. There's amending the Constitution. There's rewriting the Constitution completely. There's keeping the system of judicial review, if you're willing to deal with the bs that comes from that.
If that's what a particular state wants then they should be able to self regulate if the added paperwork and infrastructure is not an encumbrance. I'm thinking it would be unnecessary division...perhaps not. It should be seen as the state of affairs. When you live in a state that's the state, if the status quo is pro or against...well that's what it is....feel free to vote away. If some people can't deal with the state of affairs so to speak.....the country is free to roam.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Some states could certainly choose that, if they wish.
What level of granularity would you like it to be then? Neighborhood or street level? Odd number houses can, even numbers cant hehe...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Wouldn't he be repealing a Supreme Court decision that defends a woman's right to choose? He is thereby saying that's not an individual right the Supreme Court is supposed to defend.
If a state would like to structure their abortion laws so that only inhabitants of odd-numbered houses could get abortions it would certainly be in their power to try, although that would violate numerous federal and state-level constitutional principles.
In all seriousness, however, states could certainly in turn leave abortion choices to counties or cities. It would be an odd approach, but certainly a legal one.
The idea is that the Constitution is already defending that right
I wouldn't be against that. It's less of disturbance. The more distributed the mandate is, the better really. what I was saying is compared to federal it's the only solution. The same mentality could be applied for state to county, and it would bother me, as long as it didn't create more gov't costs and overhead. It shouldn't though. I say put it everything in the hands of individual communities.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
It's not. If the federal government wants to get involved then they have to amend the Constitution. If they are not willing to do so then it is a state's rights issue. Prior to Roe v Wade there where states where abortions where legal and even if it reverts back to that the wman still has the choice to hop in her car, a bus, or a plane and go to a state where abortion is legal.
But it's not. The courts are defending that right by simply inventing it from a supposed principle of privacy that does not really exist in the Constitution, or at least does not exist in a generic form. If I have a right to "privacy", then how can the government subpeona me, view my income records for the purposes of taxation, or impose a federal system of health care that would force me into the system? If you think about the silly justification of "privacy" and its logical extensions, you'll find numerous contradictions.
If you want the Constitution to defend the right of abortion, amend it. It's not complicated.
Well, in practical terms, it's really not much of a solution to have abortion legal in one town and then illegal in another. Then you're going to end up having some serious conflicts between individual small regions, which is probably why all states would impose a state-wide answer.
Abortion, as an issue, is dealt with best by the individual woman in question, which is why all forms of government should stay out of the picture, in my opinion.
Maybe I am not being clear. One of the things the Supreme Court does is defending fundamental individual rights against majority decisions.
By repealing the decision, Paul is saying that the Supreme Court is mistaken in its interpretation of the constitution as granting a woman's rights to privacy, and that the states can legislate legitimately against that right.
Well, that's your interpretation of the issue. Clearly the Justices don't see it that way. Nor do many other people. But anyway, I think you are proving my point: if you maintain that it should be a matter left to the states you are saying that a woman's right to choose is not defended by the constitution. Fair enough?
The Supreme Court was mistaken in it's interpretation of the Constitution. I presonally don't believe that any level of government should be involved in this issue, but the government is going to get involved wether we like it or not, so if that is the case it should be left up to the states. The issue of abortion should be put on a ballot in each state and the constituients of that state should decide the issue once and for all.
As farfromglorified stated if the government wants to protect a woman's righyt to choose then we need to amend the constitution.
Can you provide me another interpretation that does not create silly contradictions? If we have a right to privacy, how come the government can review my income to tax me? If we have a right to privacy, how could the government ever force me to participate in universal health care? If we have a right to privacy, why can the government force me to appear as a witness at a federal trial? If we have a right to privacy, how come the government can legally sequester me in a disease containment facility?
I am certainly saying that a woman's right to abort a child is not defended by the Constitution. The text of the Constitution is widely available. If you can show me where in the Constitution a woman's right to abort is mentioned, I'll gladly change my tune. The Constitution does say, however, that issues not addressed in its mandate are left to the states. Hence my position that it is the states' role to defend the natural rights of women, including the right to abort.
I see. All I was trying to say was that it does not make sense to maintain both that abortion is a constitutionally protected right and that it is an issue best left to the states.
I am curious though about the general idea that "the government should not get involved". Isn't it the case that the function of some branches of government is precisely to defend individual rights that may be trampled on by majorities, whether at the state or federal level?
Surely you could define privacy in a specific enough way so as to avoid those contradictions.
The federal government should get involved when an individuals Constitutional rights are being trampled on by the majority, but as it has been stated already, the Constitution does not protect a woman's right to choose. And since it is not outlined specifically in the Constitution it is then left up to the states. Like FFG said if people want a woman's right to choose protected by the constitution then people need to start pressuring their federal representatives to put forth a motion to have the Constitution amended to include that right.
Playing Devil's advocate,
You mean, like defending an INDIVIDUALS RIGHT to LIFE (liberty, & the pursuit of happiness) against the MAJORITY's decision to allow women to extinguish said life?
You can't just pick and choose constitutional principals willy-nilly.
You have to look at them on the whole, and i believe (not even considering abortion directly) that any time the god given RIGHT to LIFE isplaced up against Gods other given right to "PRIVACY", that LIFE would be held to be of greater HEFT! Where in so much as your personal right to privacy extinguishes another persons right to life, your right to privacy is trumped.
???
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Hehe...the only way to do that would be to define a right to abort, which one could certainly do via a Constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court, as with any court, has no right to amend the Constitution or to enact any legislation, nor does it have the right to define the concepts of which you speak in such an arbitrary way. Individual state legislatures and the federal legislature have such rights, however, and could certainly choose to use them.
...
As for amendments to the Constitutuion... they should be Rights... not laws.
Hail, Hail!!!