Why do you oppose allowing states to decide their own abortion laws?

If you want to live in a state that allows abortion, you are free to reside in that state. If a woman wants an abortion, they are free to travel to that state and get an abortion. The tenth amendment gives states some degree of sovereignty:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If it's not in the constitution, which abortion isn't, it's left up to the state to decide - as long as state laws don't violate the constitution. A woman's right to protect her own life is a constitutional right. All states that have abortion laws have a provision that allows women to terminate their pregnancy in those life-threatening situations. Beyond that, there's nothing in the constitution that would give a woman the right to murder her own baby.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

TinyViolins · 31-35, M

Why should a document written over 200 years ago get to dictate the future with it's priorities? That's the equivalent of never getting to go to your room until your plate is clean because your parents told you when you were little that you can't. It's ridiculous to expect people to blindly follow the rules established by those that have long been dead.

The constitution is not the end all and be all of human existence. It's just a template on how to run a country. It's not in the Constitution to decide what to do if an asteroid comes hurtling towards Earth, so do you seriously expect the rest of the world to sit with their thumbs up our asses waiting on the Supreme Court to decide whether it's constitutional for NASA to blow it up?

But to answer the question more directly, one simply needs to look towards the 14th Amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Simply put, a fetus is not subject to the protection of the law because they have not been born. They do not count as a person within the eyes of the law, so by counting them as a person in order protect their life is violating several clauses of this amendment.

SW-User

@TinyViolins Make that argument to the Supremes Clarence Darrow.

It's a sure winner - a slam dunk!

TinyViolins · 31-35, M

@SW-User Well he died in 1938, so I'm gonna need a time machine first

SW-User

@TinyViolins Well get into it HG Wells, and go back further and stop those stupid men from writing a paper acknowledging inalienable rights

TinyViolins · 31-35, M

@SW-User [media=https://youtu.be/m9-R8T1SuG4]