“Let the states decide.”

[Twilight Hue]

Except there was civil war that had slavery as a major point of disagreement. Meaning it wasn't a common cause. Do you think the States should have been free to allow slavery back then?

I believe the states would eventually ban privatized slavery altogether anyways, but this entire country is still a slave nation and don't make any bones about that fact.

The plantation masters just moved from private to governmental and all political parties still allow it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You think the same for guns and immigration, right?

Why not? Although firearms are still a constitutional protection and cannot be rescinded , so the firearms question is really a moot issue.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So too the Jim Crow laws.

I don't see any push for a return to Jim Crow legislation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why not? Although firearms are still a constitutional protection and cannot be rescinded , so the firearms question is really a moot issue.

A few years ago, abortion was a constitutional protection that couldn't be rescinded.

 

[ChristineM]

I agree with the slavery part and obviously that's why it's now a federal issue because it's a common cause.

Abortion is a state issue unlike what you want to believe, it is most certainly not a common cause , which means it isnt a federal matter , but a states matter.

Half the population of America are women.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Half the population of America are women.

And they're just as many women pro-life anti-abortion as anti-abortion pro-life.

 

[ChristineM]

And they're just as many women pro-life anti-abortion as anti-abortion pro-life.

Do you have a citation on that?

What I'm saying here is the it should be a federal matter, not state

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And they're just as many women pro-life anti-abortion as anti-abortion pro-life.

Mmhmm. Most of the people on either side of the issue are women, from what I can see from watching pro life videos and seeing rallies/marches. Men don't care that much about it either way, it seems.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A few years ago, abortion was a constitutional protection that couldn't be rescinded.

Except that guns are explicitly in the Constitution as the subject of the Second Amendment, and abortion is not. The Bill of Rights certainly isn't going anywhere.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Except that guns are explicitly in the Constitution as the subject of the Second Amendment, and abortion is not.

Guns aren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution either. "Arms" are, but only in the context of militia service.

The right to, say, keep a handgun for home defense is an implied right, similar to the right to privacy cited in Roe v. Wade.

The Bill of Rights certainly isn't going anywhere.

The text may stay, but the interpretation of that text is subject to change.

DC v. Heller is as vulnerable to being overturned as Roe v. Wade was. The only real protection your gun rights have is how the Supreme Court leans, but this changes over time.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Guns aren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution either. "Arms" are, but only in the context of militia service.

The right to, say, keep a handgun for home defense is an implied right, similar to the right to privacy cited in Roe v. Wade.

Guns are arms and you conveniently left out "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". There's nothing implied about it.

The text may stay, but the interpretation of that text is subject to change.

DC v. Heller is as vulnerable to being overturned as Roe v. Wade was. The only real protection your gun rights have is how the Supreme Court leans, but this changes over time.

I'm just going by what the Constitution actually says, not the whims of the Supreme Court. They make good rulings and bad ones.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

“Let the states decide. (e.g. on abortion)” is often said by Republicans. Big government bad they say, so we should let the state governments as opposed to the federal government dictate many things of our lives.

To those who say that, why don’t you say “Let the counties decide.”? And if you say that, why don’t you say “Let the cities decide.”? And if you say that, why don’t you say “Let the individual decide.”?

Normally, I like to shoot spitballs at both sides of the aisle. But when conservatives say something along the lines of “big government bad therefore let states dictate everything” it makes me chuckle. That is all.

Because the state level is where the laws are made. If a city or county makes a law that contradicts a state law it will not be valid. On abortion teh Dobbs decision says the states can make a law either way on abortion.

 

[fantome profane]

And they're just as many women pro-life anti-abortion as anti-abortion pro-life.

source?

 

[fantome profane]

Guns are arms

As are bazookas and rpgs.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

As are bazookas and rpgs.

Yes, and?

 

[fantome profane]

Yes, and?

If you really don't see a problem with your argument there is no point trying to explain it to you. If you do see the problem with your argument and are pretending you don't, again there is no point trying to explain it to you.

But others see the flaw in your argument.

 

[Copernicus]

I think its a good thing. We are united under a united common cause which is why federalism was adopted.

The federal system was established by the Constitution in the first place because the Articles of Confederation made such a mess of governance after the Revolution. The abortion controversy is not going to be solved by a "state's rights" argument.

Abortion is far from being a united common cause which is a clear case why it should clearly be a states right issue.

The opposite is the case. It only makes sense for a state to pass a law when conditions local to that state are at issue. Human bodies and pregnancies are the same in all states, and the issue of individual rights ought to make no difference according to state boundaries. There is no reason why one state should experience a flood of women seeking abortions because a neighboring state has arbitrarily decided to ban them. That became clear when a pregnant Georgian woman died, because she had to travel to North Carolina for medical care, only to find that she had missed her appointment in an overburdened hospital system. My own state of Washington experiences the same thing because of neighboring Idaho.

Washington sees ripple effects of Dobbs decision as Idaho patients seek abortion care​

It's good for both sides because they can all migrate to places where things best suits them.

I'm sorry, but that is such a looney argument. Why should people have to move to a different state on the off-chance that they might need an abortion? It is not as if women actually plan to have abortions. What determines where you live depends on where you can make best use of your abilities to earn a living, not to find a place that resolves all of your political opinions. You seem to fantasize a country in which people are constantly bouncing around like ping pong balls every time they change their minds on some hot button issue.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you really don't see a problem with your argument there is no point trying to explain it to you. If you do see the problem with your argument and are pretending you don't, again there is no point trying to explain it to you.

But others see the flaw in your argument.

What flaw? Point it out. Nothing I said was incorrect. You just don't agree. Oh, well.

 

[Koldo]

I believe the states would eventually ban privatized slavery altogether anyways, but this entire country is still a slave nation and don't make any bones about that fact.

The plantation masters just moved from private to governmental and all political parties still allow it.

You didn't answer my question though. Do you think the States should have been free to allow slavery back then, until they eventually decided against it (or maybe never)?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The federal system was established by the Constitution in the first place because the Articles of Confederation made such a mess of governance after the Revolution. The abortion controversy is not going to be solved by a "state's rights" argument.



The opposite is the case. It only makes sense for a state to pass a law when conditions local to that state are at issue. Human bodies and pregnancies are the same in all states, and the issue of individual rights ought to make no difference according to state boundaries. There is no reason why one state should experience a flood of women seeking abortions because a neighboring state has arbitrarily decided to ban them. That became clear when a pregnant Georgian woman died, because she had to travel to North Carolina for medical care, only to find that she had missed her appointment in an overburdened hospital system. My own state of Washington experiences the same thing because of neighboring Idaho.

Washington sees ripple effects of Dobbs decision as Idaho patients seek abortion care​

I'm sorry, but that is such a looney argument. Why should people have to move to a different state on the off-chance that they might need an abortion? It is not as if women actually plan to have abortions. What determines where you live depends on where you can make best use of your abilities to earn a living, not to find a place that resolves all of your political opinions. You seem to fantasize a country in which people are constantly bouncing around like ping pong balls every time they change their minds on some hot button issue.

Simply put it is absolute craziness and sheer madness to have a centralized government as opposed to a state's rights option where people can pretty much get to places where they like to be that fits their views and lifestyle.

Abortion is not a common cause people have different views on it which makes it a state issue that's just the way it is.