or maybe a healthy mix of both? and why?
2007-03-09 03:27:25 · 9 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think most pro-lifers would be thrilled...I know I would be, but then again I'm a virulent states rights supporter who feels the feds should pretty much be relegated to maintaining a military, minting money, and delivering mail.
Although I disagree with them, most pro-choice people would be against it, as they view it as a constitutional right which shouldn't be subject to the prevailing political winds in the several state capitals.
EDIT: coragryph, "the US Constitution implicitly grants the freedom to choose"? Where might one find that passage in the Constitution? I don't see it anywhere in my copy.
2007-03-09 03:33:40 · answer #1 · answered by Rick N 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The issue of pro-choice is whether the government has a right to determine what happens inside a person's body.
Pushing the decision down to the state level doesn't help at all, since many states have shown a frequent tendency to want to enforce local moral and religious doctrines, regardless of what the law says.
The fact that the US Constitution implicitly grants the freedom to choose means it's not a federal or state issue. It's a constitutional issue. And if you take away constitutional protections to the right to choose, then there are no protections at all.
On the other hand, anti-choice folks would absolutely love it being a state issue. Without Constitutional protections from the Supreme Court, they would win the majority in a large number of states, and thus get to force their decisions on everyone else.
2007-03-09 11:33:32 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Pro-life or Pro-choice (I hate those designations!), It doesn't matter. Read the Bill of Rights. It should be a state issue.
AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
One more Amendment forgotten, ignored, flushed down the toilet. Remember the concept of common law? That's what this one is all about. Those who wrote this amendment thought it would take care of all the things they just couldn't write down in a lifetime. I guess they didn't try hard enough. Either that or they underestimated the power of stupidity in government.
AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Wow! What happens when you hear someone quote this one? He is viewed as a bigot, racist, or any number of other negative descriptives. Never is it someone just trying to live by the law of the land. This one is just too inconvenient for anyone in position of Federal power. Even judges sitting on Federal benches pretend they never heard of the Tenth Amendment.
2007-03-09 11:44:31 · answer #3 · answered by John H 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
pro-life would probally prefer having it be a state issue since some states are mostly conservative or mostly liberal. they aren't many 50/50 or purple states.
pro-choice don't want to deny anyone their rights, thus they support federal protection for women's rights.
I would rather have it stay as it is with it being federally legalized. if it was between having it illegal in federally or state-by-state, I'd choose state-by-state.
I don't like that states right now are putting restrictions on who can have abortions. I also dislike that some want the father notified if the couple is married- medical records are private period!
2007-03-09 12:11:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem with Roe v Wade is that while people might be happy with the result in that case, the reasoning, or method of interpretation, the court used could be applied in other circumstances in ways which people would NOT like.
In this way, the Kelo decision, allowing private parties to take property, could be said to be a cousin of Roe v Wade.
HOW the court decides can be as important as WHAT they decide.
2007-03-09 11:33:30 · answer #5 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I could see that.
coragryph you call pro-lifers anti-choice, couldn't I call you pro-death?
And where in the constitution does it say that?
2007-03-09 11:33:14 · answer #6 · answered by Gary W 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anti-Abortionist would want to but the law back into the hands of the people.
2007-03-09 11:34:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is really a state issue at this point.
2007-03-09 11:31:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I prefer it the way it is thank you.
2007-03-09 11:31:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋