Should Individual US States Determine Who is a Human Being?

[Estro Felino]

In the 21st century with so much information about contraception, and with so many cheap methods, I am amazed that women get easily pregnant. Still nowadays.
It is not that easy, let alone with the precautions one is supposed to take.
I don't know any female friend who made her own child by accident.
I only know women who got pregnant after a while, after taking the decision.

that is why the issue of abortion is scarily anachronistic in the Western World. Especially when you see educated women who despite their degree, weren't cautious enough to avoid getting pregnant.

 

[averageJOE]

The decision on abortion should be between a woman and her doctor.

 

[fantome profane]

This doesn't address the point, ie....
Dems deride Pubs for it, but Dems also favor
"states rights" when it suits them. States do
have rights under the Constitution, so libs
shouldn't make them sound so evil.

Why the **** not!

When it is done for evil, we must call it evil.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This doesn't address the point, ie....
Dems deride Pubs for it, but Dems also favor
"states rights" when it suits them. States do
have rights under the Constitution, so libs
shouldn't make them sound so evil.

It's more of who's harping on about it the loudest, most often, and what they are wanting from it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why the **** not!

When it is done for evil, we must call it evil.

To claim that "states' rights" is inherently wrong is the
height of hypocrisy for Democrats.
Do you believe that the 10th Amendment doesn't
apply, or that it is wrong? And was it wrong for the
states to recognize gay marriage when the federal
government would not?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's more of who's harping on about it the loudest, most often, and what they are wanting from it.

Does this mean that you do recognize the states
having some rights over & above rights granted
by the federal government? What's your opinion
of the 10th Amendment's cromulence?

 

[fantome profane]

To claim that "states' rights" is inherently wrong is the
height of hypocrisy for Democrats.
Do you believe that the 10th Amendment doesn't
apply, or that it is wrong? And was it wrong for the
states to recognize gay marriage when the federal
government would not?

I don’t give a fried fig about states rights one way or the other. I don’t see anything about states rights that is particularly honourable or worthy of protecting, nor do I think there is anything inherently wrong in the concept.

The 10th amendment gives power to the states. Power can be used for good or evil. When the states use that power to promote equality and protect minorities that is good, when they use that power to enforce segregation or take away basic human rights that is evil. And we have the obligation to call out evil for what it is.

States rights shmates right.

No one care whether or not the boot on their neck is properly laced.

 

[Revoltingest]

...use that power to enforce segregation or take away basic human rights that is evil. And we have the obligation to call out evil for what it is.

Not the issue I addressed, but OK.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To claim that "states' rights" is inherently wrong is the
height of hypocrisy for Democrats.
Do you believe that the 10th Amendment doesn't
apply, or that it is wrong? And was it wrong for the
states to recognize gay marriage when the federal
government would not?

As I see it, it is a bit of both. State rights are limited in one sense by Constitution in some cases and in some cases free from the Federal yet still within the Constitution. It is the grey areas where the fun starts.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I see it, it is a bit of both. State rights are limited in one sense by Constitution in some cases and in some cases free from the Federal yet still within the Constitution. It is the grey areas where the fun starts.

We call'm "gray" areas here.