For constitutional purposes, the state level was, pre-Roe, the historic norm and the elimination of that ruling would only move things back to that point. Indeed, the reason that there is a court case on the matter is because, contrary to the premise of the question, moving the legal issue to what was nominally seen as the personal level only, in effect, "Federalized" the question - specifically leaving the question to the courts which are turning handstands to avoid the sticky moral questions that attach to abortion.
In that connection, the British statesman and political philosopher Edmund Burke wrote, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations." Therein lay the problem with laws that permit abortion on demand.
A society that premises its law as "Choice"- to use the locution of abortion rights advocates - effectively leaves open the question of the value of human life. It becomes not a standing principle, but a subjective judgment to each individual. In such a society, human life becomes not an end in itself, but mere instrument. Life becomes not an object whose preservation is the highest standard, but rather a convenience to be maintained or not according to the satisfaction of another's will.
We shape our laws and then our laws shape us - see also the civil rights laws of the 1960s which have effected a revolution in race relations. (The idea that a black man and a white man cannot sit together at the same lunch counter is as alien to this generation as Neptune. Yet in 1965 it was pretty much the norm.)
Inherent then in the pro-choice argument is the idea that life has no value save that which each person chooses to attach to it. It denies society any authority to make a collective judgment on such questions. Therefore, in this view, the law may not afford protection to life except at some arbitrarily defined (and inherently subjective) point.
This then conduces to an assertion of power over rights. Life is maintained not as its own end, but according to the will of the person who, effectively, controls it because they can. An ethic of convenience is established and it is a slippery slope on which to build a culture and a legal edifice.
Such a society will not value life that sees life as not an end, but as a means to some other end. Indeed, that is why at about the same time as the culture began to shift on the abortion question we also saw a rise in child abuse, spousal abuse, divorce, out of wedlock births and other social pathologies. These were not unrelated phenomena.
Aristotle said that the first questions of politics are, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?" The implicit answer of those who support abortion on demand is, in effect, that it is nobody's business. Predictable results follow. One cannot expect the society to absent itself from collective moral judgments on the value of life and then expect an ethical social order to result.
Most Helpful Opinions
"I don't see why people who don't believe abortion rights should be decided at the national level, think it should be at the state level."
I'm one of those people you mentioned. Abortion is NOT one of the enumerated "rights" that the federal government has within the Constitution. Neither is health care. Neither is gay marriage. ALL three of those (legislative) decisions were made by the SCOTUS - waaaaay outside their purview. The CLOSEST possibility to decide these areas is through the 10th Amendment where its decided the state level.
The best thing this court can do is overturn R v. W, and send it to the states for their determination as to how they will deal with it. There is technically ZERO "law" that says a woman's have an abortion. If Congress wants a law like that, they've had the past 48 YEARS to do that. FYI... Democrats held the majority in BOTH houses of Congress most of those years, with at least 4 Dem Presidents (Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden) in the WH to pass a law like that. Obviously, this hasn't been a priority for them.
I think it should be national, but only after the point of viability. Once a fetus is viable, it should have the same protections of life as any other person in our country. No federal funding should be paying for abortion.
Prior to that, I believe the states should be free to decide what is best for them. I would prefer to live in a state that rejects abortion in all but extreme circumstances, but respect that others have different opinions and should be free to live where they see fit and vote their opinion on the matter.
It should be up to the parents of the child. Both parents. If they disagree on keeping/aborting then the court should be involved. If the children are underage, it should be up to the mother and her parents. If she and her parents disagree then the court should be involved
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
4Opinion
I voted National, because it's governments that have to respect rights. Personal only happens if the higher levels allow that choice (which is how it should be).
You're right that it's hypocritical to say that only the state level of government should decide this particular question. Does the country allow a woman to choose whether to have a baby or not? Does the country allow a person to own another person or not? Should towns be allowed to make slavery legal?
Morality and beliefs are subjective, even among people of a single religion. Some Christians claim a soul is created at conception (of which God collects between a third and a half before the woman even knows she's pregnant), the Jewish belief is that the soul comes at birth. Atheists don't believe in a soul at all, but do consider suffering.
The standard of Roe, viability outside the womb, seems like a reasonable standard. Very, very few abortions happen anywhere near that point; unwanted pregnancies will already have been terminated, leaving only wanted but seriously problematic pregnancies, and denying that choice to the mother is just cruel.
Of course, all the laws restricting abortions only make the abortions, when they occur, more traumatic.Personal. It should literally be nobody's business except the one carrying it and the doctor removing it.
This is a personal thing and a woman should have the right to make decisions about her body regardless of opinions of what is right or wrong.
I think the person who has the uterus should decide for the uterus.
Depends on the scope.
National..
Learn more
Most Helpful Opinions