Should Keeping Abortions legal be left up to the States?

meme

farfromglorified wrote:

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, 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?

mammasan

meme wrote:

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.

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.

farfromglorified

meme wrote:

Well, that's your interpretation of the issue. Clearly the Justices don't see it that way. Nor do many other people.

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?

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?

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.

meme

mammasan wrote:

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.

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?

meme

farfromglorified wrote:

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?

Surely you could define privacy in a specific enough way so as to avoid those contradictions.

mammasan

meme wrote:

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?

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.

DriftingByTheStorm

meme wrote:

Maybe I am not being clear. One of the things the Supreme Court does is defending fundamental individual rights against majority decisions.

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.

???

farfromglorified

meme wrote:

Surely you could define privacy in a specific enough way so as to avoid those contradictions.

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.

Cosmo

I believe it should be left for the states to decide (same with gun control legislation). But, the state law can not supercede Federal Law or violate Constitutional Rights.
...
As for amendments to the Constitutuion... they should be Rights... not laws.

soulsinging

yes, ti should. cos im' tired of talking about it.

mammasan

Cosmo wrote:

I believe it should be left for the states to decide (same with gun control legislation). But, the state law can not supercede Federal Law or violate Constitutional Rights.
...
As for amendments to the Constitutuion... they should be Rights... not laws.

Not to stray from the topic but gun control laws can have an effect on neighboring states. For example, here in NJ the majority of illegal confiscated firearms where traced back to states with less regulation. These easily purchased weapons where used to commit crimes in another state. Again I don't want to change the topic here just wanted to point that out.

flywallyfly

So it really comes down to the question of whether a woman's reproductive decisions belong to :

(1) Herself
(2) The federal government
(3) The government of individual states

I go with number one.

mammasan

flywallyfly wrote:

So it really comes down to the question of whether a woman's reproductive decisions belong to :

(1) Herself
(2) The federal government
(3) The government of individual states

I go with number one.

Ultimately it does and it should, but unfortunetly that is not the reality of the situation. So we have to work with what we have.

soulsinging

flywallyfly wrote:

So it really comes down to the question of whether a woman's reproductive decisions belong to :

(1) Herself
(2) The federal government
(3) The government of individual states

I go with number one.

or if the lives of the vulnerable dependent belong to
1) themselves
2) those who are inconvenienced by them

i'm sorry, but there are 2 equally valid sides to this one. and i'm pro-choice. it's not that simple.

1970RR

mammasan wrote:

Not to stray from the topic but gun control laws can have an effect on neighboring states. For example, here in NJ the majority of illegal confiscated firearms where traced back to states with less regulation. These easily purchased weapons where used to commit crimes in another state. Again I don't want to change the topic here just wanted to point that out.

The same could be said for a lot of things (alcohol, fireworks, cigarettes, lower sales taxes). Does that mean we should federalize everything? Where do you draw the line?

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

or if the lives of the vulnerable dependent belong to

3) The ones who are actually living.

Let's try an exercise:

If your heart stops beating and I reach into your chest and pump your heart with my hand and the action of my hand is the only thing that keeps you alive, who owns your life -- you or me?

Cosmo

mammasan wrote:

Not to stray from the topic but gun control laws can have an effect on neighboring states. For example, here in NJ the majority of illegal confiscated firearms where traced back to states with less regulation. These easily purchased weapons where used to commit crimes in another state. Again I don't want to change the topic here just wanted to point that out.

...
Then, what New Jersey needs to do is make strict and punative laws against cross stateline movement of guns... and enforce them.
Like, here in Southern California... I wouldn't toss them in jail. I'd make them do trash pick up detail along our freeways... every weekend... for 4 years.

mammasan

1970RR wrote:

The same could be said for a lot of things (alcohol, fireworks, cigarettes, lower sales taxes). Does that mean we should federalize everything? Where do you draw the line?

I understand where you are coming from and it is a fine line. Sales taxes, cigarettes, fireworks, and alcohol have never been used to commit a crime, to my knowledge. The result of states with lax fire arms regulation can lead to an increase in illegal fire arms in other states. Again I am just using stats for NJ provided by the state police. So an arguement can be made that, let's use Virginia as an example, that Virginia's gun laws pose a threat to the safety and well being of the citizens of New Jersey. The same arguement can not be made for alcohol, sales taxes and cigarettes.

mammasan

Cosmo wrote:

...
Then, what New Jersey needs to do is make strict and punative laws against cross stateline movement of guns... and enforce them.
Like, here in Southern California... I wouldn't toss them in jail. I'd make them do trash pick up detail along our freeways... every weekend... for 4 years.

New Jersey does have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, this includes the transportation of illegal fire arms across state lines. I-95 which is a corridor along the East coast for drug and fire arms traffic is constantly patrolled by the state police but there is only so many cars that can be stopped and inspected in a given time frame. We can debate this all day but I don't want to hijack this thread. If you want I can start another thread where we can discuss this.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

3) The ones who are actually living.

Let's try an exercise:

If your heart stops beating and I reach into your chest and pump your heart with my hand and the action of my hand is the only thing that keeps you alive, who owns your life -- you or me?

let's try an exercise:

at what point in the pregnancy does a fetus become a living being? becos premature births are quite common and we can remove them from the womb with greater and greater ease. you wanna draw the line for me? 6 months? post-birth? are premature babies not really alive? is a c-section baby just getting alive via loophole?

i'm not saying the life from conception argument is one i agree with, i'm saying it's a pretty valid argument becos nobody has been able to give a definitive answer as to when it suddenly becomes its own life.