“Let the states decide.”

[Koldo]

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 Although firearms are still a constitutional protection and cannot be rescinded , so the firearms question is really a moot issue.

But would you be fine with doing away with the second ammendment then and allowing the States to decide for themselves?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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)?

I'm against slavery in all forms but it's still legal nonetheless.

And sorry, slavery is still condoned by all political parties to this day.

Do you like that fact yourself? I can tell you I don't approve.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But would you be fine with doing away with the second ammendment then and allowing the States to decide for themselves?

No. The Constitution is sacrosanct but I would respect a legitimate constitutional convention however to decide on that matter.

 

[Koldo]

No. The Constitution is sacrosanct but I would respect a legitimate constitutional convention however to decide on that matter.

And if such a convention ever happened you would be in favor of gun rights being decided by the States, correct?

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Abortions are not anything like a "lifestyle". They are medical procedures that can be life-threatening if not done properly. There is a big difference between traveling to another state for an abortion, and moving to another state on the off-chance that one might be in need of an abortion.

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.

No, that makes it an individual issue, not a state issue. There is no reason for a state government to address the need for an abortion. Women who don't want them are free to not have them in any state in the union.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Abortions are not anything like a "lifestyle". They are medical procedures that can be life-threatening if not done properly. There is a big difference between traveling to another state for an abortion, and moving to another state on the off-chance that one might be in need of an abortion.



No, that makes it an individual issue, not a state issue. There is no reason for a state government to address the need for an abortion. Women who don't want them are free to not have them in any state in the union.

You know I am an agreement with one thing that people shouldn't be penalized for going out of state to get an abortion even though they live in another state. In that context I agree it's an individual affair that the state must keep out of a person's life if they travel to another state.

 

[Pogo]

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

No. Here is the link again.​

Views on abortion by gender, 2024​

Majorities of both men (61%) and women (64%) express support for legal abortion.

---

Public Opinion on Abortion

While public support for legal abortion has fluctuated some in two decades of polling, it has remained relatively stable over the past five years.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Pogo]

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.

You think you might just be able to think there is a reason that women find it more personal than men?

 

[Pogo]

Yes, and?

The supreme court has already said the second amendment doesn't give you the right to own them.

 

[Quintessence]

Well the reality in your atate is simple.

If you don't like it. Move elsewhere where you do.

This is seriously your response to gross human rights violates and the complexities of people's lives that make this a completely unrealistic and outlandish expectation?

For flip's sake.

You might as well be telling domestic abuse victims "if you want your husband or wife to stop beating you, just move out" as if it's that simple and that domestic abuse happens in the first place is not the problem somehow.

 

[Revoltingest]

Abortions are not anything like a "lifestyle". They are medical procedures that can be life-threatening if not done properly. There is a big difference between traveling to another state for an abortion, and moving to another state on the off-chance that one might be in need of an abortion.



No, that makes it an individual issue, not a state issue. There is no reason for a state government to address the need for an abortion. Women who don't want them are free to not have them in any state in the union.

Moreover, moving isn't easy or cheap for many.
Selling a house has high transfer costs.
And what if the value is "under water"?
It could become impossible to sell it.
Changing jobs & schools can be tough too.

No one had a couple decades prior notice which
states would ban or approve abortion rights.
Trump & his SCOTUS arrived too suddenly to
plan a family's life around.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Guns are arms

So are nuclear weapons, but you have no right to keep or bear one.

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

It's never meant any and every weapon you can think of. You could never personally own a cannon, for instance.

Until 2008, the test established by the Supreme Court was whether the weapon was of use militarily (the deciding case about this involving sawed-off shotguns, which the Supreme Court ruled didn't have a military purpose and therefore could be banned).

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

And the Constitution doesn't say that you have an unfettered right to all weapons. The Second Amendment presupposes - but does not define - some sort of pre-existing right to bear arms without saying that this right is absolute. What is covered by this pre-existing right? That's for the Supreme Court to decide.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So are nuclear weapons, but you have no right to keep or bear one.


It's never meant any and every weapon you can think of. You could never personally own a cannon, for instance.

Until 2008, the test established by the Supreme Court was whether the weapon was of use militarily (the deciding case about this involving sawed-off shotguns, which the Supreme Court ruled didn't have a military purpose and therefore could be banned).



And the Constitution doesn't say that you have an unfettered right to all weapons. The Second Amendment presupposes - but does not define - some sort of pre-existing right to bear arms without saying that this right is absolute. What is covered by this pre-existing right? That's for the Supreme Court to decide.

The point is that the right to bear arms is in the Constitution and abortion isn't in it, so it's not the same thing. I'm not here to argue with you over what type of guns or other "arms" are covered. It's irrelevant to what I was saying.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is seriously your response to gross human rights violates and the complexities of people's lives that make this a completely unrealistic and outlandish expectation?

For flip's sake.

You might as well be telling domestic abuse victims "if you want your husband or wife to stop beating you, just move out" as if it's that simple and that domestic abuse happens in the first place is not the problem somehow.

Sorry. I'm not for centralized government. People have choices. States can accommodate those choices. People can move or travel to states that best reflect their needs and wants.

There's nothing outlandish about it. If the people in each state doesn't like the way their governments run, they can choose to vote in a new governor.

 

[Nakosis]

“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.

That would make sense though if you applied that to every issue we'd have anarchy.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That would make sense though if you applied that to every issue we'd have anarchy.

I think that's his desire. Lol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Slavery isn't a common cause either but it shouldn't be a states issue.
Abortion is healthcare and it shouldn't be a states issue. We the People do not want it to be a states issue and too many women have suffered and died from bad state laws as it is. And, of course, not everyone can afford to move amd no one knows if they'll need an abortion to save their life or not.

Wait a second. Slavery could be a states' rights issue? Now I am having second thoughts on abortion. Hmm, if I could have a slave or two I might change my mind on abortions. Hah! I just Googled it and it appears that there is a real chance of that if the Republican candidate for governor wins that state. Let's see if this documentary loads:

 

[Copernicus]

You know I am an agreement with one thing that people shouldn't be penalized for going out of state to get an abortion even though they live in another state. In that context I agree it's an individual affair that the state must keep out of a person's life if they travel to another state.

Well, I'm not in agreement with you. Women in need of an abortion in Idaho should not have to travel to my state of Washington in order to get a safe abortion. That has an impact on our health care resources and availability. Moreover, it places an undue travel burden on the pregnant woman. If abortion is a "personal affair", then the woman's state government should keep their collective noses out of her personal affairs.

 

[crossfire]

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

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

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

Let me quote a blurb from this article that was posted:

<...>

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

<...>

Here's the blurb from the above article:

“There is a humongous shortage across the country. In Washington state, in particular, we do have a huge physician shortage of OB-GYNs,” Meljen said. “Alone, my group lost over 50 percent of our clinicians who did this care in the last year. So people are waiting two to three months to meet me just to get pills or to get IUDs because I can’t see them fast enough.”​

So, what are the women who live here supposed to do for contraception when they can't get an appointment because all of the appointment slots are being taken up from people from out of state who come here to get care that has been outlawed in their states?

Leaving abortion laws up to the states is making reproductive care (not just abortions) a matter of interstate commerce, which can be regulated by the Federal government under the commerce clause. Laws in neighboring states criminalizing some forms of reproductive care are leading to shortages of availablility of all reproductive care in states without such laws. How long can this continue before the feds step in, and what will the feds do?

 

[PureX]

“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.

And what happens when the states decide to return to legalize the practice of slavery. Or to treat women as chattel?