0 votes

Pro-life or States' rights?

Got into a huge, but friendly debate today with my cleaning lady about this.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

tricky issue

If your pro-life, i would assume you would think a fetus is a life and has the right to be protected... so i don't know how you could argue that states should decide whether or not to protect right to life.

Another problem with the states deciding is, you would have people travel out of state to get abortions. Just like the argument for the rape exception, good in theory but hard to implement. It could lead to women claiming rape that weren't raped, how would a law ever be put in place to sort that out?

This is the one issue i dont think has an easy answer. It all comes down to at what point does the unborn have the right to be protected. Beats me.

Both.

It's not like there's a contradiction between the two. The states take care of murder and other crimes, so abortion should be treated in the same manner.

Remember: your rights end where others' begin. Your right to keep & bear arms ends where a privately-owned gun-free zone begins, even if gun-free zones are stupid. Your right to control your own body stops when that also involves killing a baby.

I personally am pro-life

but I do not feel it is necessary for there to be a ban on abortion in order for me to practice my pro-life values. That being said, in the past I took the position of states' rights on the abortion issue because the issue is supposedly so divided between pro-life and pro-choice. This appears to me to be the point of a limited federal government: to allow the states the right to regulate according to their constituencies.

I have reversed my opinion on this issue in the recent months, or at least, I no longer argue for states rights on the abortion issue. I have retracted my position because I do not believe the Pro-Life movement is really all that serious about the life of the unborn, instead choosing to endorse Romney as the republican nominee. Given that Romney is the poorest choice for the pro-life movement among all the republican candidates, it appears to me that the pro-life movement places party politics above the life of the unborn, so I no longer take them seriously. Since my reasoning behind advocating for states rights regarding abortion was predicated on the assumption that there was actually a sincere pro-life movement in the US, I feel there is no real need to advocate for either a ban on abortion, or states rights concerning this issue.

neither

.

To me it's simple

The government should never outlaw abortion. Now, I am pro life and would never encourage abortion but, if you make it illegal you are asking for a problem.

It is just like the war on drugs. Make it illegal and you will have underground "doctors" performing dangerous and deadly abortions. Have you ever heard of a coat hanger abortion? You simply can't and won't stop people from having them. It is all up the moral of a person. It should be legal across the board.

On a personal note. I had a very good friend in high school come up to me and tell me that she was pregnant. She was completely confused and I tried my very hardest to talk with her and reason with her. She said she could not tell her parents because she was scared and her parents would literally disown her and throw her out in the street. She and her family was Mormon. I asked what she thought about abortion. She could not bring herself to do that because of her faith. But, she was able bring herself to do something else. A week later her parents found her hanging in her room. She killed herself. From that point forward my beliefs changed dramatically on religion and abortion.

What a tragic experience

You make a very profound point with the exceptionally sad story of the loss of two precious human lives.
I am deeply sorry for loss of your friend's life, her child's, and for her parents. I also wonder what happend to the sire of her child. I pray he learned to respect life.

Here's why it's a crime against humanity NOT to outlaw abortion.

"The argument for legalizing abortion so no one gets injured in an illegal abortion is like arguing for the legalization of bank robbery so no one will get injured during the robbery." - Ron Paul "Abortion and Liberty"

When an abortion takes place, a human life is snuffed out. Before Roe v. Wade, there were about 80 women a year known to have died from illegal abortions. Since Roe v. Wade, in years when there have been statistics recorded by CDC, there's usually 10-25 women that die from legal abortions. On top of that, there's close to a million babies that die from abortions compared to only a few thousand before Roe v. Wade. That's hardly a humane trade-off.

not all true

Before abortion was legal it is impossible to know how many people got an abortion. Because it was underground and undocumented. The only way you would know is if they get arrested or they get seriously hurt and have to go to the hospital. If a million people want to get an abortion then a million people are going to get an abortion whether its legal or not. The difference is that if its legal you are able to track how many people get one because they go to a clinic and have it safely done. Therefore, it gets documented. See what I mean? Let's try this example.

Say tomorrow heroin is legal. There will not and I promise you there will not be more people using heroin. If you want to use it they will use it whether it is legal or not. The only way to now who uses it when it's illegal is if they get arrested or they have to go to the hospital. Therefore, you only know the fraction of people that use it. Now, say its legal. Now you are able to track how much is bought and sold. Now its documented and a more accurate stat on the use of it. So it looks like more people are using it. When in fact you just know how much is bought and sold.

It's quite the opposition of what the TV tells you. When you make things illegal, you glorify it and make it attractive and tempting. So if anything if you make heroin legal the use will go down. If abortion is legal, there will be less abortions.

Alright.

By that logic, then we should legalize stealing. I mean, thieves are going to steal anyway whether there are laws meant to stop them or not. If we legalized theft, we wouldn't have to worry about police getting shot at or thieves getting injured trying to get away from the police. Heck, we also wouldn't have to pay as many cops since that would be one less crime they would have to worry about.

The fundamental difference between abortion and heroin is when someone is willingly taking heroin into their body, at that moment it is a victimless crime. The potential for violence is a whole different argument, but, assuming that we're both against victimless crimes, except when a person is committing a crime against himself such as smoking, drinking, drugging, etc., then heroin should be legal. Abortion is not a victimless crime or a self-inflicted crime. It is a crime against another human being. To say that we shouldn't have laws because people will break them anyway isn't logical. It is the government's job to protect those who can't protect themselves from harm of their person or property.

I see the logic in this. It

I see the logic in this. It happened with sex during the Victorian era. All sorts of outlandish devices were invented to prevent boys from masturbating or having erections during REM sleep. Did it stop boys from masturbating? Of course not. Forbidding it made the act more exciting. It's why underage kids go out and try to buy cigarettes and booze.

So let's consider that if abortion were legal and a teenage girl went about going to a clinic to have the procedure done it was the policy of that clinic to inform her parents. No more anonymity.

I was never a fan

Of telling the parents about an abortion. That should be up to the person that's getting the abortion to tell who they want. They should not be forced. That's a good way getting the teen to have an abortion outside the clinic. Like my first comment points out, what if you had hostile parents? Crazy religious parents that would disown you and throw you out in the street for having an abortion? Not only that, throw you out in the streets just because you had sex. This should be just between the doctor and the patient.

Wait a second. Consider for

Wait a second. Consider for a moment that the girl in question went out and got pregnant in the first place because the parents were either too restrictive or not involved enough in that girl's social life. Consider also that teenagers aren't the smartest creatures on the face of the planet and some of them will go out and get pregnant multiple times. Don't you think that kid's parents have a right to know what their daughter is up to?

absolutly not

If they are a bad parent then why should they be involved in there most personal situation in life? If they are too restrictive, abusive and don't care then why should they know? So they can be more restrictive and abusive? It reminds me of parents that don't care what's going on in there child's life until the child makes a mistake. Then the parents make the situation worse. If they're good parents there child should feel comfortable to talk to them about difficult things. If your a good parent you should teach your child about sex and safe sex. That would be horrible if a child had abusive parents, went in to have an abortion and the doctor picked up the phone and called them.

Sorry, I don't agree.

Sorry, I don't agree. Parents don't have to be abusive to be bad at parenting.

Well, I agree with you on that

Or course parents don't have to be abusive to be bad parents. But, if you're a bad parent why should they be involved in a teens most personal situation. A child legally forced to tell there parents something that personal. And really, even if you are a good parent it still should be up to the child to make the decision whether they want them to be involved or not. In my opinion, if you are a good parent the child will come and tell you this.

Let me cite you the example

Let me cite you the example of what's going on in the U.S. right now.

We have a bad government. Public awareness has had an effect. Politicians are beginning to realize that they can't simply carry on the status quo of corruption anymore because their constituents are watching and paying attention.

Abortion will one

day be looked back on like slavery. You watch.

Not

likely. Over the past hundred years, human beings in Western countries have only become more immoral and degenerate.

I see a moral

revolution on the horizon.

no inherent conflict

The two don't have to contradict each other. The Constitution is designed to both protect life and to reserve powers to the states. The 14th amendment forbids state governments from denying us of life without due process of law. I would argue that abortion violates that clause, although the Supreme Court doesn't see that way. (But it's often wrong.)

Protecting life does not violate states' rights. It isn't forcing the states to do something or usurping their traditional police powers. It's saying, You can't violate this basic, natural, God-given right. The enforcement of that protection of life should be left to the states. The federal Human Life Amendment that defines personhood as beginning at conception is compatible with the 10th amendment. It would forbid the states from violating a 14th amendment right but different states could choose to handle the protection of that right in different ways. That's how it was pre-Roe v. Wade, pre-abortion "liberalization" in the 1960s.

By the way, for libertarians who imagine that "reproductive freedom" is a libertarian cause, do some history reading. It's no more a libertarian cause than a feminist cause. Its roots are in eugenics and population control. The driving forces in the U.S. behind legalized abortion in the 1960s were racist and plutocratic. It was the Rockefeller wing of the GOP that was most enthused about abortion...long before Betty Friedan packaged it as a "fundamental right of women" and got NOW on board. Rockefeller and his allies were statists, not libertarians. Big government practitioners who had no regard for the Constitution, let alone individual liberty.

I'm not a Christian. Not

I'm not a Christian. Not that great of a Jew either. Religions don't make a whole lot of sense to me when they contradict their own teachings.

Does the term "Separation of

Does the term "Separation of Church and State" mean anything?

the argument people use

of separation of church and state is so misunderstood.

Thomas Jefferson was contacted by the Danbury Baptists in Virginia because the "state church" that was Presbyterian were supposedly discriminating against the Baptists. Jefferson told them that as president, the constitution gave him no power to involved himself in state affairs on that issue. Funny, so our forefathers were ok with states ran by churches.

Also, "separation of church and state" didn't show up until something like 1948 in the supreme court, before that there isn't much discussion about it. It is a modern concept that we project on the history of our country.

Our forefathers didn't see an issue with church influencing government, but rather the issue was government influencing the church. Oh how we love to paint history to fit our arguments.

Okay. So you're comfortable

Okay. So you're comfortable with the notion that male babies (even if they're not Jewish) are routinely circumsized at the hospital then.

Uncut penises have

a higher risk of getting STDs. I don't believe in force, so I am against anything be forced on someone. So I see both sides.

Im not. It's child abuse, plain and simple

No one has the right to mutilate their children in the name of religion or anything else...in places like Germany it's thankfully starting to be outlawed.

interesting fact...85%+ of Israelis and Americans are circumcised while 85%+ of the rest of the world is not.

Watch the video Cirocco...I think you'll like it lol

BTW I would have been put to death a long time ago if there was no separation of church/state lol

I forget how the US was

I forget how the US was founded upon Christianity. We all know that the ten commandments are the basis of US law.

Now excuse me, my neighbor is being killed for working on the sabbath.

Appreciate the video

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a