It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Leave it up to the states

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:53 AM
I am a srong supporter of Ron Paul and I'm sure you are all familiar with his stand on abortion being "leave it up to the states to decide". I have heard this line of thought before. It has been used in the abortion issue and I have heard it used for other issues as well. Now I ask you though to consider what does "leave it to the states" really mean? I think anbody that has half a brain realizes that it means to let each individual state decide that states laws on a particular issue. In the case of abortion where in one state a majority of the population could vote in favor of abortion and another state whose majority is pro life would make abortion illegal in that state. Now at what point do we draw the line on what a state can do and can not do? I'm not trying to get into a debate about abortion, but it is the one most commonly used issue. So New york allows abortions, but Pennsylvania does not. Whats the point if someone from pennsylvania wants an abortion all they need to do is go to New York. Why then should states not be allowed to make their own gun control laws? Then we would have California with no guns and Arizona legalizing personal possesion of tanks. Sure guns are a constitutional right but one could argue that of life is as well.

Anyway, I would like to see a discussion on what issues you feel should be up to the state to decide upon and how that would impact the rest of the country. ALso I would like to discuss the origins of the states and the original intent of the states to be free only to be joined by a government for mutual defese and commerce and not to be ruled by the government.

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 05:24 AM

I am a strong supporter of Ron Paul

Is he still in the race?

Anyway I agree with his democratic approach; but then I also agree with abortion itself.
The simple fact is a new born human baby has far less intelligence than a new born pig or sheep. Obviously the animals will always remain dumb, but this doesn't change the fact that at the point of birth the new born human is less intelligence (never mind if its terminated e.g. 6 months early).
In my view it causes far more suffering to bring people who are not wanted into the world (and one that's badly over populated-stretched at that).

What I like about his approach is...
1. Obviously it's democratic
2. The only way non-abortion states could stop desperate women leaving for another state would be to...
A. Exile them.
B. Stop pregnant women leaving

Both these options are err... authoritarian in nature. And is it really any wonder if the simple act of dictating what a women can or can't do with a life god interested her to carry around with her, is somewhat authoritarian in nature?
To disagree with her terminating the baby is to disagree with god allowing her to become pregnant enough to carry around the unwanted life in the first place (its perfectly common to have sex without becoming pregnant, and as the ultimate controller of chance itself, this is therefore no great task for any God).

In my view whenever a women becomes pregnant it is either because God wants to allow her to have children, or it's because he wants her to learn something.
And as his chosen guardians of the earth we should think more about how unwanted life causes us to fail even more miserably in this holy task that he personally appointed us with.

P.S I don't agree with the one God approach, yet I think the above is certainly a little something for those that do to think about.

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 07:53 AM
I once thought that the abortion issue was just in cases where a pregnant woman's life was in jeopardy would she consider to have an abortion. Well, then I learned that any ole "scum" could get pregnant and go get an abortion. Then I realised that, to me at least, the "moral" thing to do is not even engage in sex with a woman who might be killed by birth OR a woman who would just toss out the "baby".

I can resonably conceive a woman with a husband having already had "enough" children getting pregnant and aborting. To my logic, that is immoral - basis : personal responsibility. The woman should have had her "tubes tied" or the man a vasectomy, right? What about Sally Sixteen and Peter Pubescent? If Sally get's pregnant should she be allowed to abort - is the moral thing to do let her as her playmate probably doesn't have a financial future in the works, etc. ? Or should we let her (make her) have the child and raise it on taxes?

See, to me, that sort of thing should be left to each state to decide. I don't take into account whether or not a religions book says whatever as basically the thing is DON'T SHLUP UNTIL YOU ARE MARRIED - I don't recall any "and ye shall not vomit they loin's produce before it's due course" or something...

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 08:16 AM
I don't think California would be able to ban guns. They signed on to the Constitution when they joined the union and as part of the union they must respect the Constitution. They can either lobby to get it amended or secede if they want to ban guns.

If we put these under Amendment IX then it should be up to each state how they wish to deal with the issue. Hell, if I can go to Nevada for some hookers and Vermont for CA, CT, NY and MA banned firearms then why couldn't I go to California for an abortion?

Roe vs. Wade illegally trumped the Constitution forcing all states to comply. The Constitution can always be amended to guarantee a right to abortion but as it stands Roe vs. Wade pressed upon the states is unconstitutional.

I guess if we go by the 5th Amendment we can deny the fetus it's right to life through due process of law. Maybe that's what Roe vs. Wade did? Denied the fetus it's right to life through due process of law. But then, if the fetus is not considered a "person" it didn't have or need due process. Hmmm....

Anyway, CA can't ban guns without an amendment or secession.

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 08:34 AM
I’m in agreement with Paul on this one: The Tenth Amendment clearly states that the States have the right to regulate issues such as abortion (because they are not specifically delineated as Federal Powers). That’s why I stand opposed to Roe v. Wade – because it’s un-constitutional in creating a constructed “Right to Abortion” to be overseen by the Feds. This does not mean that I am opposed to abortion per se, only that I cannot see the basis for the Federal government having purview on the matter. This would also include such issues such as: gun rights, medical marijuana use, environmental regulations, etc.

Incidentally, that’s one of the reasons why I think Ron Paul will never achieve anything of lasting import. There are too many bureaucrats that have a vested self-interest in maintaining all these un-constitutional shackles they have on the citizens of the individual States. They’ll never vote themselves out of a job - even if that job entails constantly coming up with new ways to supervise us.

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 08:42 AM
reply to post by Liberal1984

Then another issue arises, what if he states are in the bible belt and abortion is prohibited not matter the circumstances.

This will bring the supreme court intervention when the case of a pregnant woman in which her life is in jeopardy would not be able to leave her state to perform a life saving abortion in another.

This will bring lots of very tragic issues as we women would be at the mercy of the state laws.

Tricky and very interesting issue with abortion been left to the states.

posted on May, 9 2008 @ 02:17 AM
Well since we are on the abortion issue I consider myself pro life but can see the viewpoints of pro-choice. I dont think there will ever be a solution for this problem without devine intervention. One of the arguments about pro-choice is that a woman should have control over her body and do as she wishes. If that is the case and abortion is a freedom allowed under the constitution then why do we not allow people control over their bodies and allow them to take drugs, or kill themselves becasue they are dying and in pain. On one hand we profess freedom of choice but clearly that is hypocritical based on our countries other laws prohibiting what we can and can not do to our bodies. Give the power back to the people or one day they may take it back.

top topics


log in