Another question I've been tossing around. Both sides fear activist judges in relation to Roe vs. Wade. Would the abortion issue be better addressed by handing the issue back to the states and their voters?
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Should abortion be decided at a national or state level?
Poll
Who should decide the abortion issue?
| Supreme court | 39% | 39% - 27 | ||||
| Voters in each state | 60% | 60% - 41 | ||||
| Total: 68 | ||||||
I'm a states rights kinda guy.
Not that I particularly care, but things like abortion and gay marriage when decided by the states usually means at least one state will allow it, and it's pretty darn easy with modern transportation to get to another state, so it's like the whole country allows it. It makes it a pain, but you can still do it in the country.
it should be a personal decision. end of thread.
Yeah, I'm with you on that one. Personally, I think it should just be made legal throughout the country, but since that'll never happen, having each state decide seems like the best idea.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Not that I particularly care, but things like abortion and gay marriage when decided by the states usually means at least one state will allow it, and it's pretty darn easy with modern transportation to get to another state, so it's like the whole country allows it. It makes it a pain, but you can still do it in the country.
Yup..its your body and you should decide (well maybe not you, because most members here are guys..) well you girls, sounds better, are ought to be able to make your own decision.[pt] KEIOS wrote:
it should be a personal decision. end of thread.
To clarify, I'm not debating the abortion issue all over again here. Instead, I'm looking for some discussion on how the country should address the issue since there are two opposing views on the subject. I lean towards state rights right now. Though the officials we elect nominate the Supreme Court, I feel the states need to make up their mind with a vote of the people.
11 for supreme court and 5 for state voters . . . interesting. I wonder if the results would be the same if the Supreme Court had recently overturned Roe vs. Wade.
Most of you aren't answering my question. I don't care what you think about abortion. Focus people . . . focus.
qfe[pt] KEIOS wrote:
it should be a personal decision. end of thread.
imho, unless your having the baby you don't get to make the freakin choice.
The Woman...
Love is the answer
Ok, you guys STILL aren't paying attention. I'm not asking whether you think abortion is good, bad, or anything else.
What I'm asking is this:
Since there are two very opposite views on the subject, should the Supreme Court decide or should the issue be put to each state to decide? Once again, I do NOT care if you think abortion is right or wrong, this question can be answered outside of that debate.
What I'm asking is this:
Since there are two very opposite views on the subject, should the Supreme Court decide or should the issue be put to each state to decide? Once again, I do NOT care if you think abortion is right or wrong, this question can be answered outside of that debate.
In my view, power should be devolved as much as possible - for truly representative government. As such, I reckon each state should decide for themselves.
State, definitely. Moral issues should not be forced on all states when there are so many differences of opinions.
As with all important moral questions, I think they should be decided at the most local governmental level possible. There is no way that people here (in OC) have the same morals or even lifestyle of someone in Northwest Minnesota.
If we as citizens of the United States want to continue as one nation, we need to start legislating from a local (state, city, county) level.
If we as citizens of the United States want to continue as one nation, we need to start legislating from a local (state, city, county) level.
Neither. The mother should decide.
why not the US congress? why is it that the voters can only decide on a state level? why can't the voters decide for the entire nation?
I, for one, am 100% against legislation from the bench. So i opted "voters in each state."
I, for one, am 100% against legislation from the bench. So i opted "voters in each state."
The US Congress is not a good representative of the whole country. US Congress is representing the rich white man.G3|Genius wrote:
why not the US congress? why is it that the voters can only decide on a state level? why can't the voters decide for the entire nation?
I, for one, am 100% against legislation from the bench. So i opted "voters in each state."
That's why.
Granted, if there was the ability to stage a national referendum (which I back 100%), and it was only validated after 75% of the eligible voters voted then I would be all for national voting.
The damn doctor with the medical training.
Congress
why?
The supreme court doesn't make laws or enforce laws, it simply interprets whats already there. Supreme court can't ban abortion unless they can say it is against the constitution.
of course, they could ban it anyway, the supreme court has been breaking the constitution constantly for the past many years
why?
The supreme court doesn't make laws or enforce laws, it simply interprets whats already there. Supreme court can't ban abortion unless they can say it is against the constitution.
of course, they could ban it anyway, the supreme court has been breaking the constitution constantly for the past many years
State
Yeah. "Your opinion is all that matters. End of thread."[pt] KEIOS wrote:
it should be a personal decision. end of thread.
You mean it isn't legal across the US already? That's barbaric.ghettoperson wrote:
Yeah, I'm with you on that one. Personally, I think it should just be made legal throughout the country, but since that'll never happen, having each state decide seems like the best idea.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Not that I particularly care, but things like abortion and gay marriage when decided by the states usually means at least one state will allow it, and it's pretty darn easy with modern transportation to get to another state, so it's like the whole country allows it. It makes it a pain, but you can still do it in the country.
It should be decided on a national level. Because the government is unlikely to bring in a nation wide ban because it will be yet another factor making the US look like a nation stuck in the past. The government would be far more likely to legalise it everywhere and with such an act presumably action would be taken to deal with pro-life radicals as part of the war on terror.
Oh yeah(!) - & sure(?) - every man in every government position/post - should be up a strangers vagina.
Oh yeah(!) - & sure(?) - every evangelical idiot should also be up a strangers vagina.
If it can't live/survive outside the womb (unassisted) - then it is part of a woman - until it can. And I/you/anyone do not possess the right to impose a weak moral-belief upon another's body/being (a woman). No state should be able to impose a religious belief upon anyone.
And by the way - many of the same - are against all abortions (not just those after the third trimester) - even when it is clearly just a glob of cells. They are often against birth control, premarital-sex, sex education, the abortion-pill, masturbation, condoms to prevent HIV transmission, etc.
It is a personal belief - if they don't believe in it (abortion) - then they don't have to do it - simple. I Clearly think it is matter of choice - the objections are usually based upon unreasoned, untenable beliefs.
Also there is a whole-life - not just pro-life. There is plenty to be concerned about in a pro-life stance in this world - because there is such a thing as LIFE after the WOMB! That's the whole life - start getting concerned about those born - and not just the unborn. There are billions of pro-life whole-life reasons walking the Earth already - to be concerned about - there is no-shortage of people coming into the world as of yet.
Although considering you, whoever you are, a girl/woman might actually regret it and consider it a personal-loss - the alternative should not be discounted (giving it up for adoption) over the easy (abortion).
If you are for sex education - then you are considering education ethically and if so - the ethical alternative (adoption) should be taught as part of that education.
It is already LEGAL to NOT have an ABORTION, no one is forcing anyone... so their beliefs are already intact up-there in Ol' Northwest Minnesota.
Oh yeah(!) - & sure(?) - every evangelical idiot should also be up a strangers vagina.
If it can't live/survive outside the womb (unassisted) - then it is part of a woman - until it can. And I/you/anyone do not possess the right to impose a weak moral-belief upon another's body/being (a woman). No state should be able to impose a religious belief upon anyone.
And by the way - many of the same - are against all abortions (not just those after the third trimester) - even when it is clearly just a glob of cells. They are often against birth control, premarital-sex, sex education, the abortion-pill, masturbation, condoms to prevent HIV transmission, etc.
It is a personal belief - if they don't believe in it (abortion) - then they don't have to do it - simple. I Clearly think it is matter of choice - the objections are usually based upon unreasoned, untenable beliefs.
Also there is a whole-life - not just pro-life. There is plenty to be concerned about in a pro-life stance in this world - because there is such a thing as LIFE after the WOMB! That's the whole life - start getting concerned about those born - and not just the unborn. There are billions of pro-life whole-life reasons walking the Earth already - to be concerned about - there is no-shortage of people coming into the world as of yet.
Although considering you, whoever you are, a girl/woman might actually regret it and consider it a personal-loss - the alternative should not be discounted (giving it up for adoption) over the easy (abortion).
If you are for sex education - then you are considering education ethically and if so - the ethical alternative (adoption) should be taught as part of that education.
As with ALL MORAL questions, which are usually suspect and untenable nonesense, it should not be decided by the Government at ANY LEVEL.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
As with all important moral questions, I think they should be decided at the most local governmental level possible. There is no way that people here (in OC) have the same morals or even lifestyle of someone in Northwest Minnesota.
If we as citizens of the United States want to continue as one nation, we need to start legislating from a local (state, city, county) level.
It is already LEGAL to NOT have an ABORTION, no one is forcing anyone... so their beliefs are already intact up-there in Ol' Northwest Minnesota.
I voted NULL. It is already legal... and should remain so. It does not need any political action taken. NO-ACTION is fine. Focus gufus focus...Stingray24 wrote:
Most of you aren't answering my question. I don't care what you think about abortion. Focus people . . . focus.
What he said...iNeedUrFace4Soup wrote:
The person choosing, between the clinic or the wire hanger because there is no clinic, should decide.
And what he said...[TUF]Catbox wrote:
The Woman...
And what he said...cospengle wrote:
Neither. The mother should decide.
Also what he said...Mackaronen wrote:
I nulled, cuz i believe it is up to the pregnant women do decide. I would feel sorry for a man if the woman does an abortion against his will, but hay, its not him who have to carry the baby for 9 months and then give birth to it.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-01-22 08:47:58)
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Should abortion be decided at a national or state level?