Abortion bans gives the government too much power.

[Shaul]

Sorry, but you are wrong. There was no federal laws on abortion. By limiting state laws on abortions that limited government power. You might want to work on your logic skills. When one talks about lessening of government power one has to take all government power into consideration. Not just federal. The ruling is neutral federally over the control over an individual. It limits what states can do lessening their power so it is clearly a net lessening of government control. You don't get to ignore the control of state government.

Of course Roe v. Wade has the power of law. It is simply judicial interpretive law, just not legislative law. But the power of law it is. Since you argue that Roe v. Wade isn’t an exercise of any power then eliminating it should have no effect. So you should have no objection to getting rid of it if it holds no power. Which do you want, that it has no power or that it does?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course Roe v. Wade has the power of law. It is simply judicial interpretive law, just not legislative law. But the power of law it is. Since you argue that Roe v. Wade isn’t an exercise of any power then eliminating it should have no effect. So you should have no objection to getting rid of it if it holds no power. Which do you want, that it has no power or that it does?

And like it or not it lessens government control. Putting a limit on state government is not increasing government control on people.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Shaul]

And like it or not it lessens government control. Putting a limit on state government is not increasing government control on people.

Why is this so hard to understand?

No. It it didn’t lessen any government power or control. The states power still exists. It is just thwarted by a new Federal power being exercised. And the net is an increase in total government power being exercised is increased.

Again, if you think that Roe v. Wade isn’t an exercise in power then eliminating it would have no effect. So you should have no objection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. It it didn’t lessen any government power or control. The states power still exists. It is just thwarted by a new Federal power being exercised. And the net is an increase in total government power being exercised is increased.

Again, if you think that Roe v. Wade isn’t an exercise in power then eliminating it would have no effect. So you should have no objection.

Of course it did. States were unable to have excessive abortion laws.

No matter how many times you make this claim you will still be wrong. It is a very odd way to reason.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. The only current Federal power being asserted is because of Roe v. Wade.

That seems an inverted way of looking at power.
From the perspective of a citizen, constitutional
rights are limits to governmental power. To lose
a right is to increase this power over us.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems we disagree on this one

Well, that happens
Let's agree to disagree
Okay?

Sounds great to me.

 

[Ponder This]

Try to think of it this way. If one gives the government the power to decide if one can have an abortion then one is also given the government the power to force an abortion. They both amount to the same thing. Telling a women what she has to do with her uterus.

Personally I would not give the government that much power.

Am I understanding your argument?
You are arguing that the power to ban abortions is the same as power to force abortions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Am I understanding your argument?
You are arguing that the power to ban abortions is the same as power to force abortions.

Yes, it is the same power. Just different extremes of the same power.

 

[crossfire]

And oddly enough recently the Democrats have been more conservative fiscally. They are not willing to cut taxes without having some way to make up for the money. They won't cut needed government services so they know that taxes cannot be lowered. The Republicans have learned that it is a losing campaign to cut needed services so they try to claim that cut taxes will pay for themselves. That no longer appears to be the case. We are no longer on that side of the Laughler Curve.

You need deficit spending in order to issue Treasury bonds.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If one gives the government the power to decide if one can have an abortion then one is also given the government the power to force an abortion.

No, it is not. Bad arguments against criminalizing abortion are, first and foremost, bad arguments.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. The only current Federal power being asserted is because of Roe v. Wade. Overturning it would eliminate Federal power affecting abortion. The power of state would remain the same. Overturning Roe v. Wade results in a net reduction of government power being exercised regarding abortion.

Roe v. Wade was a check on power. Overturning it gives states the power to infringe on citizens' rights in all sorts of new ways.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

There is a fundamental error in the case you have stated. There is no attempt being made for the Federal government to ban abortion. Overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban abortions. What it would do is return the controlling authority on abortion to the states. Which, according to the tenth Amendment of the Constitution, is where it should always been. (A key reason why Roe v. Wade is legally flawed.) Overturning Roe v. Wade would not be a case of government taking more power. It is actually an example of the Federal government giving up a power it usurped from the states and never had a legitimate basis in taking.

Civil rights should NEVER be allowed to be a state’s issue because they have a history of denial.