“Let the states decide.”

[Guitar's Cry]

I will say this, I am personally against states going after people who go out of state for procedures that their present state doesn't allow.

I can respect that.

 

[crossfire]

As long as people can travel between states without penalty there is no loss of individual rights.

A collective centralized government is really the major threat to individual rights.

Some women in my state have to wait two to three months to get an appointment with their OB/GYN just to get birth control pills or an IUD because all of the appointments are taken up by out-of-state women seeking abortions or out-of-state women with high risk pregnancies who can't stay in their own state as their state would deny needed emergency treatment. There are women from Idaho with high risk pregnancies staying in hotels in Seattle to get their medical care. No bonehead politician from another state should prevent women in another state from getting contraception because they refuse to take care of their own women.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Some women in my state have to wait two to three months to get an appointment with their OB/GYN just to get birth control pills or an IUD because all of the appointments are taken up by out-of-state women seeking abortions or out-of-state women with high risk pregnancies who can't stay in their own state as their state would deny needed emergency treatment. There are women from Idaho with high risk pregnancies staying in hotels in Seattle to get their medical care. No bonehead politician from another state should prevent women in another state from getting contraception because they refuse to take care of their own women.

Then it's up to that state's citizenry to convince their governor one way or another.

Whether you believe it or not, there are women out there who don't share the same view of other women and they deserve to be represented just as much as anybody else.

Personally however I would like to see Roe versus Wade reinstated with all the restrictions that were agreed upon forehand. Obviously there are people out there who didn't , which is why it was thrown out and states rights as far as I'm concerned is the answer where everybody can get what they want.

 

[Copernicus]

Then it's up to that state's citizenry to convince their governor one way or another.

No, it isn't. This is a matter that concerns interstate relations and the right of women to control their own bodies and their own lives. It is a matter for the federal government to resolve.

Whether you believe it or not, there are women out there who don't share the same view of other women and they deserve to be represented just as much as anybody else.

How are these women not being represented?

 

[fantome profane]

there are women out there who don't share the same view of other women and they deserve to be represented

Give me an example of a medical procedure you might feel you need, but someone with a "different view" than you should "be represented" to determine whether or not you have that right.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Give me an example of a medical procedure you might feel you need, but someone with a "different view" than you should "be represented" to determine whether or not you have that right.

I think first you need a definition that's universally accepted when a fetus becomes a human. Once that's done, I'm sure there would be across the board agreement.

However there are always exceptions but like Bill Clinton would say, "Safe, legal, and rare".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know what -at least I am consistent.

No, you're being inconsistent and hypocritical.

I am opposed to the death penalty as well as abortion generally speaking. Homeless people, I don't know, I'd need to be confronted with it and judge each situation individually. But these are adults, not innocent (there's that word again) babies, or fetuses if you prefer that terminology.

But I gave you a scenario involving fetuses and all you did was dodge.

Is there any scenario besides abortion where you would also say that a fetus's right to life should supersede another person's rights in any way whatsoever?

And we can't take personhood or innocence out of the equation.

Because in your view, people only have a right to life if they're "innocent" enough?

 

[crossfire]

Then it's up to that state's citizenry to convince their governor one way or another.

When a shortage of medical care is caused by an influx of out of state-women, what can you do? If the Governor of Texas won't listen to Texan women, how the hell do you expect him to listen to Washington women? (The women of Washington could sue Texas for causing the shortage, but the Federal courts would have jurisdiction as per the Constitution.)

Whether you believe it or not, there are women out there who don't share the same view of other women and they deserve to be represented just as much as anybody else.

In my state, women are free to believe as they choose, and would have the liberty to choose what is best for them (if there weren't shortages created by an influx of out-of-state women.)

Personally however I would like to see Roe versus Wade reinstated with all the restrictions that were agreed upon forehand.

Roe v Wade worked very well--it greatly lowered the maternal mortality rate while it was in effect. Everyone could choose what was best for themselves. (Free-market model)

Obviously there are people out there who didn't , which is why it was thrown out and states rights as far as I'm concerned is the answer where everybody can get what they want.

No, not everyone can get what they want now due to the restrictions imposed by some states. (Non-free-market model.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As long as people can travel between states without penalty there is no loss of individual rights.

Even better for individual rights: legally enshrining freedom of choice everywhere.

BTW: would you apply this logic to any other right?

"Your state may have banned mosques, but there's one just across the state line... and as long as people can travel between states without penalty there is no loss of individual rights."

"We've repealed freedom of the press in this state, but there's a newsstand two states over where you can still buy a paper... and as long as people can travel between states without penalty there is no loss of individual rights."

A collective centralized government is really the major threat to individual rights.

A vocal minority who want to impose their religion through secular law is really the major threat to individual rights.

 

[fantome profane]

I think first you need a definition that's universally accepted when a fetus becomes a human. Once that's done, I'm sure there would be across the board agreement.

However there are always exceptions but like Bill Clinton would say, "Safe, legal, and rare".

No, we don't need that. You can have your definition and you can make decisions for your life based on your view, and someone else can have another decision and they can make decisions based on their view.

If Bill Clinton thinks abortions should be rare, then I hope it is rare for Bill Clinton to have an abortion.

But I noticed you didn't answer my question. Because you can't answer the question. You can't give me an example of a medical procedure you might be denied because of someone else's view. This issue only applies to other people, not you.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, we don't need that. You can have your definition and you can make decisions for your life based on your view, and someone else can have another decision and they can make decisions based on their view.

If Bill Clinton thinks abortions should be rare, then I hope it is rare for Bill Clinton to have an abortion.

But I noticed you didn't answer my question. Because you can't answer the question. You can't give me an example of a medical procedure you might be denied because of someone else's view. This issue only applies to other people, not you.

Oh but I did answer it by saying it's a states right issue and the people living in those states.

 

[fantome profane]

Oh but I did answer it by saying it's a states right issue and the people living in those states.

So give me an example a medical procedure you think you need and where you want the state you live in to decide whether or not you can have it.

 

[crossfire]

Oh but I did answer it by saying it's a states right issue and the people living in those states.

There are 24 states where the citizens have no available avenue to petition for laws to be put to a general vote or even to vote to repeal a law instilled by their legislature. In these 24 states, there is no check against the power of the state to impose laws the people disagree with. In the states that do have public referendums, the citizens are voting out abortion restrictions and voting in abortion rights. In the states with no such accommodation for public referendums, I guess the dissenting citizens are left to either appeal to the courts or to expel their legislators from office.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So give me an example a medical procedure you think you need and where you want the state you live in to decide whether or not you can have it.

That dosent make a lick of sense. If I need a medical procedure and it isn't available my state then I will simply go to a state where it does have it.

Pretty straightforward isn't it?

 

[crossfire]

That dosent make a lick of sense. If I need a medical procedure and it isn't available my state then I will simply go to a state where it does have it.

Pretty straightforward isn't it?

Which medical procedures are appropriate for the state, not the market, to determine whether they are available or not? Could you give a specific example of a medical procedure you might want or need where it would be appropriate for the state to criminalize in your state?

 

[Copernicus]

Whether you believe it or not, there are women out there who don't share the same view of other women and they deserve to be represented just as much as anybody else.

How are these women not being represented?

I just wanted clarification, so I thought I would ask the question again, in case you missed it.

 

[anotherneil]

“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.

I'm not sure who specifically you're referring to - it sounds like a strawman attack on what the actual situation is.

The actual situation that was being argued is that the SCOTUS ruling on Roe v Wade took away a states' rights (10th Amendment issue) and legislated from the bench, which went against constitutional separation of powers of the 3 branches of government.

 

[Kathryn]

No, you're being inconsistent and hypocritical.



Is there any scenario besides abortion where you would also say that a fetus's right to life should supersede another person's rights in any way whatsoever?




Because in your view, people only have a right to life if they're "innocent" enough?

No I am not but of course you'd say something like that. But sure, I can say that in the matter of self defense, or even rape or incest, I could see exceptions though I might not take them personally.

 

[Kathryn]

The problem that I have with your answers is that they are often like this one. You could just answer the question, but you don't. Nobody disputes that many women later regret having an abortion. Not all women look back on such a difficult choice in the same way, so the question is legitimate. Your posts seem to suggest that you would prefer the government to take the choice away from women. You do not trust them to make the decision without government intervention.

There is not an answer for this question, which is why I refused to answer it.

 

[Kathryn]

That is not an answer to my question. Everybody makes decisions that they later regret.

Do you trust women to make their own decisions about this?

You are trying to force words into my mouth that I am not saying so I am not going to answer this directly.