What level should abortions be decided at?

[Twalli]

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.

National

State

District

Municipal

Personal

[nightdrot]

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.

[Twalli]

It depends on when you see life as a human being starting. I could show you various pictures of fetuses and you couldn't tell me what animal they belong to. at that point. In fact nobody could. Since the fetus at that point is indistinguishable from that of a of pig or an elephant should it really have more rights that those other fetuses?

[nightdrot]

Pictures are nice, but they are hardly dispositive. Please identify the EXACT moment in time a fetus becomes human. Then describe, scientifically and philosophically, the differences one minute before that EXACT moment and one minute after.

A thing cannot be other than what it is. A human fetus will not become a dog or a goose or anything else for that matter. To then stipulate in law a moment in time when abortion on demand is legalized is to say that human beings have no value save that which each individual chooses it to be.

Either the human life has value and merits legal protection, or it is left to the whim of those who wield the power. Suffice to say, we have been down that road before historically.

[Twalli]

What death toll to unsafe abortions is acceptable to you?

[nightdrot]

If you act against the law, it is not possible for the law to protect you. If an abortion is illegal, then it is your choice to risk your life by evading the protections of the law.

None is acceptable, but for those who act in contravention of the law, protection cannot be afforded. The difference being that in the case of the woman, she has made certain decisions and must bear responsibility for those decisions. For the child, he/she has no choice except that which is imposed upon him/her.

[Twalli]

Here's the thing. Safe abortions exist. Unsafe abortions exist. Safe abortions don't kill the woman or prevent her from becoming pregnant ever again. Unsafe abortions can do both. So every woman who is denied a safe option, but still goes through an abortion can die while killing the fetus. If the fetus is a human you are sacrificing two lives where you could have saved one.

[nightdrot]

Safe abortions do indeed exist, but the problem is that abortion on demand takes a human life who has committed no offense. It is, as a legal matter, withdrawing the protections of law from the innocent.

Those who seek abortions are afforded all rights - including the right to decide whether or not the other lives or dies. The "other" bears the consequences of the one who made the choices - good or bad. This is both legally dubious as a matter of justice, and morally problematic.

Embody that ethic in law, and bad things happen. As has been historically demonstrated.

The rest is a dubious mathematics. The passage of law is with the expectation that the law will be obeyed. If we were to write law on the basis of the assumption that it will NOT be obeyed, then you have in effect negated law and again are reduced to a mere power principle.

Bottom line, we want law that embodies the moral principle that life has an intrinsic value. Moreover, we want law that holds the citizen responsible for the consequences of his/her action.

Negating such principles is apt to create bad outcomes - the difference being that the "pro-choice" option negates any standards at all beyond mere power and convenience.

[Twalli]

We do know that any law outlawing abortions will not stop abortions. It will stop the ability to have abortions which ensures one life (at least) survives. While unsafe abortions do not mean two lives end, it holds that very real possibility. Will there be fewer abortions? Yes. Will the abortions that do happen result in more than just one life lost, unlike legal safe abortions? Yes. Maybe we're different, but I don't think we should sacrifice two lives due to some moral issue that doesn't affect you personally when we have the ability to save one of them. I am one of the few that support abortion, because all acts should be for good which is only happiness. If a birth cannot increase happiness (at a greater amount than sadness), then it shouldn't happen. Because we can't know this with certainty, we must carefully examine each pregnancy to determine the good it can bring.

[nightdrot]

Yes, and we do know that outlawing murder will not eliminate murder. We do know that outlawing pedophilia will not eliminate pedophilia.

The list goes on.

The point being that we make law to set a standard or moral excellence. Imperfect and imperfectible people are not always likely to meet that standard.

Be that as it may, if we set no standard at all, there will be no standard. Liberty becomes not an avenue to excellence but, as I noted, a mere exercise of convenience and power. A utilitarian calculation rather than a moral one.

[Twalli]

Yet there's not a way to murder or be a pedophile in a safe way.

[nightdrot]

Just as there is not a safe way to have any violation of law. You are confusing cause and effect.

[Goforit1010]

"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.

[Twalli]

The thing is that the 10th Amendment doesn't say states should decide it. It says that decisions should be delegated to the lowest possible governing body to make said decision. Why are states that level? Wht not municipalities or districts?

[Goforit1010]

The Constitution says those powers NOT enumerated within this document belong to the several states. Fine. Let the individual states decide that matter. It's possible some states will allow individual cities to make that decision. Nonetheless, the determination for abortion, or gay marriage, or health care, or any other social issues, OUTSIDE the rights listed in the Constitution, belong there. If my memory serves me correctly, that was the situation with abortion.

Every state had a law against abortion, in some form or another, and the SCOTUS simply overstepped their authority and in one decision wiped those laws out. The same thing happened with gay marriage.

We have a Constitution that sets the framework for the way the country is governed. Until the schools start teaching this correctly (and not from a negative socialist viewpoint), we're going to have a LOT of people completely pissed about how the country's run.

[Twalli]

Here's a question, one state says " no resident can get an abortion" another says "anyone currently in this state can get one". Which one takes precedence?

[Goforit1010]

I suppose that would depend on how the state's laws are written. If you go to Wyoming and buy something, do you pay the sales tax for your home state of KS or that of Wyoming? The answer is - you pay WY sakes tax. If you break a law in AZ (where doing the same thing is legal in your state of WA), can you be fined, arrested and charged with breaking their laws? The answer is YES!

[Twalli]

So the state where an action takes place takes precedence?

[Goforit1010]

As far as I'm aware, yes. If you're in a state that allows abortion and your state doesn't, my guess would be you can get one.

That's IF... the state allowing abortion doesn't require residency first, or some other rules you need to follow. Remember, abortion IS elective surgery. In other words, being pregnant is not considered a life threatening emergency.

If right turns on red are allowed in State A, but not your State B, you can make a right turn on red - as long as you follow those driving requirements in State A - making sure no oncoming traffic, no persons in a crosswalk, no emergency vehicles, etc... you get the idea.

[Twalli]

I understand that, but if a state outlaws it for all residents and another state allows it for all people, which state laws take precedence in such a situation? That is likely to happen if the Texas law is allowed to stand after a judicial review

[Goforit1010]

No... you're missing the point. The laws are applied in the jurisdiction they're enacted in. If Alabama outlaws abortion and Tennessee allows it, you cannot get an abortion in AL, but if you're in TN, you can. Simple as that. So typically, states that are run by Democrats are more likely to allow abortion - IN THEIR STATE. Those typically run by Republicans, will likely outright ban abortion or have restrictions on it like TX does now. There will be no Federal law stating abortion is legal in all of the US.

Do you remember how gay marriage was before the SCOTUS made that ignorant decision? Some states allowed it, others did not. That's how it'll work if Roe is overturned. The Constitution does NOT allow abortion as an enumerated "right", such as bearing arms, or freedom of assembly, or the right to nit testify against yourself. Thats WHY Roe was an idiotic WRONG decision in the 1st place. SCOTUS needs to get their collective heads out of their asses and overturn that decision, sending that issue to be dealt with by the individual states.

Democrats are insisting our lives be governed by Washington DC and continuously enlarging the size of Gov't. Republicans typically want a SMALLER Gov't footprint to allow us more individual freedom.

[goaded]

"Republicans typically want a SMALLER Gov't footprint to allow us more individual freedom."
What about the individual freedom of the woman?

You only want a smaller Federal government footprint, while allowing states to override districts and municipalities (over lockdowns and mask mandates, for example).

[Goforit1010]

@goaded - Why is it you ALWAYS miss the point. A woman DOES have rights over her body. However, the state has a vested interest in the other life. The one inside her. That's WHY someone who kills a pregnant woman is charged with multiple murders. The state (or Gov't) views pregnancy as life to be protected.

She didn't get pregnant by accident (rape and forced incest excluded). She knew what would possibly happen if she had unprotected sex. To use abortion as "birth control" is an outright killing of that life within her. Instead of pushing abortion as a (fictitious) "right", SCOTUS needs to vacate that decision, sending its determination to the individual states.

Liberals, the media, and their acolytes need to start pushing pregnancy prevention. God knows there are a diverse multitude of ways to handle that, including abstinence.

[goaded]

"God knows... abstinence" That's basically what it comes down to, isn't it?

It's an entirely religious position that a zygote is a person (a third to a half of which naturally miscarry, maybe God likes innocent souls), so it should have no place in law.

So tell me why the Federal government shouldn't make the decision about the legality of abortion, but the states should. And why it should be based on your religious beliefs, and not others' or none. And tell me honestly that the same people pushing to outlaw abortion won't come after contraception next.

They're the same people are against sex outside marriage (but don't seem to mind electing politicians who lie and cheat on their wives). They are also against sex education in school, so how should "Liberals, the media, and their acolytes" go about "pushing pregnancy prevention"?

[Goforit1010]

@goaded - Typical liberal response. Just make stuff up as you go with zero to base your ideas. And ALWAYS... it's doom and gloom with you. Ya know, if you don't like it here, you can always leave the US. No one's stopping you.

[KrisPW]

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.

[DizzyDesii]

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

[Twalli]

So personal

[DizzyDesii]

Yea i voted that on the poll

[goaded]

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.

[Agape93]

Personal. It should literally be nobody's business except the one carrying it and the doctor removing it.

[fonduegirl]

Exact-fucking-ly!!

[RobT312]

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.

[UCrayCray]

I think the person who has the uterus should decide for the uterus.

[anylolone]

Depends on the scope.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

National..