How is abortion a states rights issue?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you think I was talking about a psychology class? Funny.

I agree with this on abortion, I suppose. I don't understand the people on my side that get all worked up over the threat to Roe v. Wade. All overturning that would do is toss the issue back to the states. And in the states that the majority of people live in nothing would change.

I've actually been thinking about the possibility of accomplishing things at the state level recently. I've noticed that the state of Minnesota does pretty much everything it does better than the federal government. It's easier to gather the political will on the state level, I think. People tend to like their state government better than the feds. As a default play I guess I like the idea of leaving more things to the states.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've had a few drinks LOL. I saw "Philosophy" and "Psychology" clicked in my head. I do agree with you about the stupidity of some in my line of study though.


As to the discussion at hand, that's pretty much true with everything. I'm not much of a government supporter, however, government always does seem to be better the closer it is.

Its sort of a free market ideology, in a way. Want to carry a gun, in general, stay in the south. Want to feel better about what you do for the enviroment, move to California, want to lead the nation in executions, move to Texas, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can get behind the idea of free market thinking in this respect. Like, I would never live in the South. Ever. Or the Southwest. Really, I can't think of many places I'd be happy outside of Minnesota. Maybe Canada, maybe New England, but that would be about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and since states do so much better than the federal government, think how much better municipalities would do. And since municipalities do so much better than states, think how much better minding your own business would do.

[EvanJC]

Way, way off topic here, but I'm just curious...How do the Ron Paul supporters on this board reconcile with his religious beliefs? It doesn't bother you that this man lives in fantasy land? Or it's just not important enough to 'cancel out' all of the good ideas he has?

I know most of you guys are atheists...so what gives? Is he just the least objectionable choice? Personally I think I'd be more comfortable with a lip-service christian in office.

I dunno.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
US CODE Title 18,1111

(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;
Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(c) For purposes of this section—
(1) the term “assault” has the same meaning as given that term in section 113;
(2) the term “child” means a person who has not attained the age of 18 years and is—
(A) under the perpetrator’s care or control; or
(B) at least six years younger than the perpetrator;
(3) the term “child abuse” means intentionally or knowingly causing death or serious bodily injury to a child;
(4) the term “pattern or practice of assault or torture” means assault or torture engaged in on at least two occasions;
(5) the term “serious bodily injury” has the meaning set forth in section 1365; and
(6) the term “torture” means conduct, whether or not committed under the color of law, that otherwise satisfies the definition set forth in section 2340 (1).


[/ QUOTE ]

See 18 USC 7, this law does not apply to the vast majority of the US.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

if the federal government defines life as beginning at conception

I hate abortion debates (except for the comedic one from "Seinfeld"), but since scientists and MDs disagree on when life begins, why on earth should the federal government arbitrarily make law on the topic?

Amendment 10 suggests that it is indeed an issue for the States, just as Amendment 9 suggests that the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade is questionable.

Personally, until there is peer-reviewed scientific consensus as to when sentience first occurs I prefer government remain silent on the issue and let individuals/the market determin availability.

For now I defer to Ayn Rand: "An embryo has no rights."

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
if the federal government defines life as beginning at conception

I hate abortion debates (except for the comedic one from "Seinfeld"), but since scientists and MDs disagree on when life begins, why on earth should the federal government arbitrarily make law on the topic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because knowing when someone is alive is foundational to many laws/policies. Even if you disagree that the federal government should have anything to do with abortion, there can be little doubt that defining personhood is an important thing for the federal government to do. For example, should a state have the power to define a life as something shy of live birth? If so, there would be incentives to do so to, for example, increase your census figures for greater representation.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

there can be little doubt that defining personhood is an important thing for the federal government to do.

I would argue that absent medical/scientific consensus, any definition applied by the State is arbitrary and political.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is not a state's rights issue. In fact, if Roe v. Wade is overturned no more than a week would go by before a bill was introduced in Congress outlawing abortion nationwide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy would that be awful! Can you imagine all those babies not being aborted?? The humanity!

*cue back-alley abortion hysterics, to which I respond with a quote from Planned Parenthood's medical director saying that technology has advanced enough for abortion to be performed safely by virtually any layperson...in 1960*

Edited to add: And of course by "safely" she is only referring to the mother LDO. Still quite unsafe for the baby/fetus/potential human/ball of cells/worm/parasite, depending on your preference.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is UNBELIEVABLY dishonest to say "Imagine all those babies not being aborted" as if THAT is the atrocity of outlawing abortions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then what is the atrocity exactly? I honestly don't get it - no dishonesty intended. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
there can be little doubt that defining personhood is an important thing for the federal government to do.

I would argue that absent medical/scientific consensus, any definition applied by the State is arbitrary and political.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to argue it - Chief Justice Harry Blackmon (author of the Roe decision) admitted it.

[bills217]

And there already is a medical/scientific consensus - a complete human organism is formed upon conception. From that point on it is completely self-directed and contains all its DNA, distinguishing it from a non-complete human organism, such as a brain cell or sperm cell or egg cell - there is no debate about that. I realize conception does not literally happen instantaneously so don't get all bent out of shape about that aspect of it - the point is that at 3 months gestation (or even earlier) there is no debate on composition and characteristics.

The real debate is a moral debate about whether that self-directed human organism has personhood rights to the degree that cutting it apart with a knife or poisoning it is no longer morally justifiable.

Scientific consensus on the aspect that actually involves science and not personal preferences has been established for quite some time.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is not a state's rights issue. In fact, if Roe v. Wade is overturned no more than a week would go by before a bill was introduced in Congress outlawing abortion nationwide.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a states rights issue, the Constitution was written to give individual states most of the issues.

I would suggest you google "Federal Criminal Offenses". You will find a very short list, as it should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would suggest that you pick up a copy of Title 18 of the United States Code, and stop trying to pass off some random google search as legal expertise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I own a copy. Its actually sitting right in front of me, as well as the Bachelors in Criminal Justice hanging on my wall, on the same shelf my badge and service weapon are sitting.

Murder is not a federal offense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh, a bachelors in criminal justice does not really mean much IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I loled at this. I rarely came into contact with the criminal justice majors in college, partly because they're not exactly liberal arts students and partly because there weren't that many of them. I do remember having like 5 of them in a Social, Legal and Political Philosophy class I took senior year and they were supertarded. The kind of people that try to hijack the class discussion to talk about current events instead of the actual philosophy.

What I remember the most is that they seemed incapable of thinking in the abstract. That isn't to say anything about DJ, though. Just reminded me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I live with two of them and go to a school is known for criminal justice. All I am going to say is that last night I had to teach my roommate(senior with a GPA around 3.5) how to cite his sources in a paper.