Prolife voting

[DanteAlighieri]

I’m going to tread very close to the ban on discussing political candidates here – please forgive me; I have a legitimate topic to discuss.

**NB: For the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume the validity of the “non-negotiables” for Catholic voters. **

Let me start by saying that I’m a firm believer in the “non-negotiable issues” that voters must consider – in particular, I look at a candidate’s stance on life issues first. That said, I encountered an interesting stance that I have not heard before, and it got me thinking.

Most people, it seems, assume that the only acceptable pro-life political stance is one that supports the overturn of Roe v. Wade and resulting in federal legislation banning abortion across the board. I would agree that this seems the most desirable situation, for the obvious reason that it would settle the issue once and for all. Perhaps there’s another possibility that would be less desirable, but in the short term is better than our current situation.

What if Roe were overturned and the right to ban abortion were returned to the several states, with the courts unable to interfere? As I said above, I’ll grant that this is not the perfect solution, but it sure beats the current “anything goes” environment.

The pros:

1. Abortion would cease to be viewed as a constitutionally protected right.
2. Many – if not most – of the so-called “red states” would likely ban abortion, or at least severly restrict it.
3. As a result of #2, far fewer babies would be killed each year.
4. A climate would exist in which gradual social change could be effected, perhaps leading to similar legislation in other states.
5. We would be able to amass data from pro-abortion states and non-abortion states that may shed more light on the falsehoods surrounding a “woman’s right to choose” (e.g., incidence of breast cancer and depression, etc.).

The cons:

1. Most – if not all – of the “blue” states would at best leave things the way they are, or at worst enact legislation banning restrictions on abortion.
2. The change in our national perception of abortion would likely be excruciatingly slow.
3. There would likely never be a federal ban on abortion, though a ban in each state would remain a possibility.

So, there you have it. My inclination is that some change is better than none, but I’m not sure of that. What do you all think?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Paganus]

Let me start by saying that I’m a firm believer in the “non-negotiable issues” that voters must consider – in particular, I look at a candidate’s stance on life issues first."

I find that “life” really helps me to get the most out of my “liberty” and “pursuit of happiness.”

Thank you for not supporting candidates who want to kill me and take my stuff!

What if Roe were overturned and the right to ban abortion were returned to the several states, with the courts unable to interfere? As I said above, I’ll grant that this is not the perfect solution, but it sure beats the current “anything goes” environment.

Overturn “Roe v Wade”? Limit the power of the federal judiciary to kill citizens and take their stuff? Sounds perfect to me!

 

[Dale_M]

Most people, it seems, assume that the only acceptable pro-life political stance is one that supports the overturn of Roe v. Wade and resulting in federal legislation banning abortion across the board.

Overturning Roe is the first step, but I have doubts as to the passage of federal laws restricting abortion. Polls indicate that a sizable majority of Americans are in favor of access to abortion. Presumably, congressmen would vote in accordance to their wishes.

What if Roe were overturned and the right to ban abortion were returned to the several states

I think this scenario has greater potential. As you said, red states would probably place restrictions on abortion while blue states would not. The overall result would be a decrease in abortions, which is better than the way things are now.

 

[mary_bobo]

It might be useful to remember that the rights listed in the Constitution are there to tell us what the federal government can do. As it says (paraphrase) those rights not given to the federal government belong to the states. I have not been able to find anywhere in the Constitution that gives a right to an abortion. This was convoluted reasoning by a very liberal court that was doing the bidding of those in favor of abortion in the stead of the legislative branch of government who did not have the stomach to bring up the issue at the time Roe v Wade became law. JMO.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It might be useful to remember that the rights listed in the Constitution are there to tell us what the federal government can do. As it says (paraphrase) those rights not given to the federal government belong to the states. I have not been able to find anywhere in the Constitution that gives a right to an abortion. This was convoluted reasoning by a very liberal court that was doing the bidding of those in favor of abortion in the stead of the legislative branch of government who did not have the stomach to bring up the issue at the time Roe v Wade became law. JMO.

The 14th Amendment, upon which they based their ruling, specifically says that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

So to follow the Constitution strictly, a state can allow abortion, but the unborn child must first be accused of a crime, have a trial, with a defense counsel, and be given the right to call witnesses and to face his accuser.