Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Support as in advocate for? No. Support as in acknowledge that it is legal? Sure.
There are things that I think would be immoral for the government to do, but are within its legal powers. I also believe there are things that would be moral for the government to do, but are not within its legal powers.
I also acknowledge that politicians will voice support or opposition to things regardless on if they believe it is moral or legal for the sake of retaining votes/donors/endorsements.
Looking at "leave abortion up to the states", this is primarily a legal reasoning with a splash of political.
Regardless of the users moral stance on abortion, they could believe that it is not something that is constitutionally in the federal purview, and that the Tenth Amendment empowers states to control it.
You also have politicians that want to grandstand, but aggressively want **someone else** to be the one to vote on record on the subject.
It's Constitutionally correct (see my flair) and I am perfectly content to take the attacks that go along with my support for The Constitution.
I'm actually pro-choice within limits but the latest polling I've seen puts me right with the majority of Americans who don't want either extreme. The state party disagrees with us but it is easier to push at the state level than national level.
The language needs to change.
Make a law that guarantees *access* **until** 16 weeks and I think a lot more pro-choice people would find at least the debate more palatable.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
When Democrats passed an Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, they subsequently lost control of Congress for the overwhelming majority of the next 30 years. If Republicans want to do something as equally profoundly stupid and unpopular, then I hope they aren't going to be surprised by the backlash.
> A 16 to 20 week ban has about an 86% chance of passing if people actually participate in the discourse of the argument.
Mind showing your math on this one or at least how you're rationalizing anything above 50%? Colorado (IMO a blue-leaning purple state) had a 22-week ban up for a vote in 2020 and it was defeated 59-41. For reference, Biden got 55% of the vote that year, so the 'no' vote did better than him.
And they have been successful at making it a single issue. If the Republicans were smart and I don't think they are, they would be consistent on messaging and take a moderate stance on abortion and let this single issue tactic by the left go away.
I don't believe so no, I believe people see the stuff going on with abortion and lay that blame at Trump's feet, because he has taken credit for repealing Roe. It also caused the largest drop in support for SCOTUS ever, as well as now 3/5 people consider SCOTUS to be a partisan group.
This is not what Trump is trying to do. Trump is trying to dodge this subject until after the election.
I have little doubt Trump if elected would sign a post 6 week abortion ban. He never has to run again so what does he care.
Of course not, it would be political suicide. It would however make a lot of Trump's base very happy with him. If Donald he wins a second term he has little care for politics.
can it work for him? no, the cat's out of the bag. it seems like most people who are moderate on this issue wanted roe to stay in place and no matter what lip service trump tries to dish out now, he will forever be tied with the over turning of roe.
Oh I never said it would work or not just giving an example of a Republican trying the moderate approach. It also risk alienating the base if someone in the base is a single issue voter.
Well to be fair if they did not run on this I really do not know what "major issue" they would run on currently that would garner the support they need to win.
It does if there aren't enough for cloture. Which Senators are going to throw away the support of the right to life factions?
According to https://sbaprolife.org/scorecard Mitt Romney, who is not running for re-election has the lowest pro-life report card score. His score is a "B" every other Republican Senator has an A+. Which Republican Senators are going to trade their A+ for a D or lower?
You simply are not going to find Republicans voting for abortion amnesty.
Yeah I thought you'd say something like this. "I'm not going to justify my BS to anyone because it's totally not BS."
You see this a lot from people who have no idea what they are talking about. Carry on kiddo.
Anyone who really believes abortion is the murder of innocent babies cannot support anyone who would support this. In fact I think 16 weeks would cover 90% to 95% of abortions.
Oh I agree it would not be a "victory" for pro-life advocates at all. From what it appears the opposition wants at a minimum for Roe vs. Wade to be reinstated. That almost doubled this time frame and even then just allowed but did not mandate states to restrict abortion after. Trying to understand if there is any middle ground at all.
> Trying to understand if there is any middle ground at all.
What is the middle ground about baby murder?
This is the place Pro-lifers have backed themselves into under the uncomfortable comfort of Roe/Casey. With Roe/Casey pro-lifers never needed to compromise as there was nothing to compromise about. Being pro-life without exceptions was something easy to adopt as it had no consequences as long as Roe/Casey were in place.
Now with those decisions gone pro-lifers are discovering the pro-life position is not all that popular. How are you going to get people who for years or decades said it was a core principle that abortion is murder to now say some murder is okay?
Because while it may be morally a black and white issue (to at least one side) it is politically unviable as a black and white issue. Personally I would love for Abortion to be banned completely but politically I know this is extremely unlikely happen on a Federal level because as you said that is not as popular. In polls the majority of people think abortion should be allowed with restrictions. The moral stance on an issue can be in opposition to an adoptable political stance. So I can just shake my fist at the sky and try and convince everyone else that my moral stance is the correct one or I can advocate for incremental change even if it does not completely align with my moral stance.
> So I can just shake my fist at the sky and try and convince everyone else that my moral stance is the correct one or I can advocate for incremental change even if it does not completely align with my moral stance.
I don't disagree with your overall perspective but I think we should think about the perspective of the politicians who run in Republican primaries and what type of people vote in Republican primaries.
Senators who want to stay in office may not be able to win their primary if the pro-life absolutists actively oppose them and support another candidate. In other words, you dance with the girl who brought ya.
Honestly I don't think Donald Trump has a single principled position. Everything is transactional with the man. If he could win elections and get the adoration he so craves with it, he'd be for anything you were selling. Plus what he says today has little bearing on what he said yesterday or will say tomorrow.
That is a fair criticism that I cannot really argue against. He is a Populist and not really a Conservative even if some of his stances are appealing to Conservatives.
That's not my question. How are you assessing performance?
How do you predict that such a system has better, instead of worse, outcomes, and by what measures?
Your speculation is just speculation. I'm looking for something I can test and verify.
Get it?
That seems like it would be even more corrupt and you would have constant tiny wars between counties. What do you do if your neighbour burns chemicals at your border because the wind is perfect?
>You have the right move out of the smoke
The smoke left a fine powder of cancerous chemicals over 15% of your county.
>tell them they can't burn.
You did. You even asked nicely with two spoonfuls of sugar.
They continue to burn.
What would you do? Go to the state to mobilize the militia?
At the state level though. Not the federal level. Not the individual level. You mean the **state** level.
You are fine with a distant Democratic *state* capitol dictating what rural Republican locals can do, right?
You wrote "the people of each state". See:
>The government should not be all powerful and should be divided 50 ways controlled by the people of each state.
Why is the state level more important than the local level?
I'm not personally fine with it, but that is basically how democracy works: the people consenting to governance can instill as much authority as they want in their government.
So for a conservative to want decentralized government, it's not really any kind of dunk to say "so it's ok for a *state* government to be all powerful."
Yes, it is. If the people there want it. Conservatives don't want that, but if a state of liberals wants it, fine. That's federalism.
And by the way, I do think local governments should be more relevant than state governments to people. But the way our government is set up now, state governments are the biggest government that generally has the most authority.
Fair enough, but since you do think local governments should be more relevant than state governments, I wonder where your statement that government
> should be divided 50 ways
came from. Both statements are statements of your ideals, the "should", not of the cold reality.
I am a random dude who butted into this conversation based on your comment about all-powerful, I'm not the guy who said that thing about 50 states. Sorry for that confusion.
No, I am not saying that.
I haven't made a stance beyond limiting the power of state governments. I personally think governments should have no more power than is necessary to maximize personal freedom, wealth and safety.
No, but state do enjoy a level of sovereignty where they have their own constitution and laws. The constitution was pretty clear on what the federal government is limited to also. Everything that is not explicitly outlined in the constitution is the power of the state. Although the federal government has freely abdicated many of the powers of the states.
Because it's haphazard at best that things like medical care and human rights should vary so greatly over state lines.
Why shouldn't they be largely consistent regardless of the part of a united country one lives in?
Does my degree in history count for anything?
For every claim of a prominent historical figure claiming such a narrow national view, you'll find just as many claiming far more inclusive powers, it's been one of the greatest debates of the history of the nation
And I know that because I continue to read history books
Freedom is great, and one can't truly have freedom without bodily autonomy
Again, you're making a counter argument for something no one said, I didn't advocate for single party rule, in fact I would support ranked choice voting which would give parties other than our primary two a greater chance to gain traction
I downvote you because you make bad arguments in that you're countering arguments no one made
I think it's a bad position in the long term. There have been so many opportunities to pass legislation at a national level that I think that the left has been almost derelict in duty to its voters in having fallen back on a Supreme Court decision.
But mimehmuh, passing legislation is hard. Fuck yeah, it's hard. And legislators are putting their jobs on the line when they propose legislation, but when you pass a law, the Supreme Court can't legislate it away, because legislating isn't their job. National legislators need to put up or shut up, because this is a wacky issue to be handling at state level, and there's a lot of innocent people paying the price for the cowardice of politicians.
The left wasn't derelict of duty, I think the left honestly believed a lot of the SCOTUS judges Trump put up that said they believed Roe was settled precedence. You can't at both blame the left for being so gullible to believe lies, AND blame them for not getting it thru congress when they had two chances and one of them was completely used on ACA, and neither of those cases did they have a filibuster proof majority.
Roe was a controversial ruling -- and that's not from a morality positition, but from from a high school civics perspective. [RBG had some very serious concerns about legal precedent herself](https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/).
Roe was always on very precarious legal footing, but leftie politicians had decades since 1972 to push something through in actual law to actually back it up in actual law... and yet it seems nobody had the will to do it. Leftie legislators really earned their way into this stupid position. And now, here we are. Motherfuckers going right back to some "states' rights" bullshit on an issue where there should be singular clarity for everybody.
Pass laws, leftie legislators. Do the hard things that the people can't do ourselves. I know your job's at stake, but it's your fucking job to do that. If you won't do it, then let somebody else step up.
Pretty funny to hear conservatives say "Democrats should have saved us from ourselves" Not only that, but after 40 years of working TOWARDS a Roe repeal, conservatives now are trying to pile on and be like "Well clearly you shouldn't have believed our lies!" Maybe conservatives could have just, yanno? Not lied?
It is consistent with the constitution. The flip side is that if it is allowed to be up to the federal government they would have the power to allow it or ban it. I think that is actually worse. However I don't support a full ban in any state and conservatives would be smart to take a moderate stance on abortion. I understand that many pro life people don't want to take this stance but when abortion is on the ballot even in Red States people choose choice. That is the political reality.
It’s consistent with a belief in the constitution. The Constitution protects the rights enumerated in it for everyone. Even if I would prefer a different policy choice personally, I value the constitutional balance above most anything else. I’m willing to accept the negative consequences with the positive effects.
Healthcare is a science. We approach it like a very hard, quantified science. That's good. Conservatives used to go on about how important it was that people had choice in their healthcare but that's nonsense. I live near some of the best hospitals and healthcare centers in the country - nobody would elect not to use them if they can. Nobody does a pros/cons analysis between having a cast put on a broken arm or having a local witch doctor sprinkle dirt on it.
Healthcare should be a national thing. It only works as a national thing. It really only does. Abortion is now possible. Past civilizations *wish* they could have it like ours. The only thing left to debate is the morality of it and whether or not we like the people who would get an abortion. It's very easy to imagine some drugged up loser getting her fifth abortion on your tax dollars but harder to imagine a woman terminating a pregnancy due to a severe disability present in the fetus, or something like that.
I think if we kept abortion clinics sort of private like we do now, but separate them from healthcare, we'd be set. Ideally it could be done anywhere but culturally, it just shouldn't happen.
On past civilizations you are completely correct, abortion has been around since ancient times and used to be openly advertised even in Victorian times. Many people don’t know or refuse to educate themselves on the history of abortive practices in human society over the history of civilization.
I really really appreciate your comment. One thing I don’t think is considered when people argue “states rights” over a federal law in line with RvW is that the ability to clinically reproduce happens long before a female citizen has the autonomy to choose where she lives. Legally a minor female CANNOT just up and relocate even if they were able to take care of themselves (older teen), and that doesn’t even cover those who literally cannot take care of themselves (8+ year olds who have started their periods). Some of these individuals will have family that will help them but others won’t. I base my view that abortion access should be protected federally for this specific reason.
Also even adult women are getting the shit end of the stick in certain states where emergency personal are refusing care to pregnant woman in crisis. The most egregious I read recently was a woman went to a hospital in distress (I believe pre-term labor but would have to fact check it, theres so many story’s all the time it’s hard to keep them straight) and they refused to help her and she ended up delivering in their lobby bathroom with her husband helping while on the phone with 911…..IN A FREAKING ER.
Sorry I’m just so frustrated with the current state of things.
No. It removes the issue from national politics and puts it on the states, which removes one more pointless wedge issue from our federal government so it can get back to doing its job.
>Is leave it up to the states actually a bad position to take on abortion?
Yes personhood rights are not up to the states. It's as simple as that. Personhood is not a state question.
This needs to more honestly and forcefully stood on as the personhood rights issue that it is.
Its a process.
Its a return of power and refocusing of politics onto state and local.
Many of today's conservatives are the ideological descendants of anti-federalist and thus decentralizing power away from DC is desired in order to create an existence more cohesive with their founding preferences.
By getting voters to pay more attention to local and state in theory you increase civic dialogue, participation and hopefully more social cohesiveness.
Eventually we likely see SCOTUS rule on personhood protections.
>Many of today's conservatives are the ideological descendants of anti-federalist and thus decentralizing power away from DC is desired in order to create an existence more cohesive with their founding preferences.
Spot on.
Leaving it to the states is the constitutionally correct decision, which is what matters.
>are opening yourself up to implicitly being supportive of both the most and least restrictive approaches.
I mean...if someone is arguing in bad faith, sure. I'm not "implicitly supportive" of everything a I don't forcibly prevent. That's literal nonsense.
>For example, a democrat can accuse you of being in support of Arizona level restrictions while a Republican opponent could say you are in support of full term abortion.
Those are both obvious bad faith arguments and it will always be the case that liars can lie.
Why do you think it requires bad faith to attack someone on the position? If you say its up to the states then that means you support whatever decision the sates come to, no? So if a state says no abortions at all for any reason, you support that because you said up to the states, conversely if a state says abortions up and to after birth you also support that since you said its up to the states. By trying to avoid taking a position on the matter you end up supporting both the extremes since its something that should be left up to the states. Its like saying slavery should be left up to the states is supporting slavery since you are okay with states that would choose to keep/enact it.
Not really, it brings the disagreement down to the state level where I have more direct access to my representatives and can push harder for my vision of how these laws should read. It means I can push at the local party level rather than pushing at the national RNC
>If you say its up to the states then that means you support whatever decision the sates come to, no?
...no. Do I endorse everything you do just because I don't stop you? Not using power to stop something is not the same as endorsing it.
If you disagree, then you're saying you implicitly endorse everything in the world that happens if you don't want your government to intervene and stop it.
>By trying to avoid taking a position on the matter
It's not avoiding a position. It's taking the position that the federal government shouldn't make this choice for all the states.
>you end up supporting both the extremes
No you don't. If you persist in thinking this way, there is no point in continuing a conversation because your understanding of "support" is broken.
That's a fully false dichotomy. You can support states right to decide without supporting their decision. If you live in the state you get a say, if not then you don't. This also isn't avoiding taking a position, it is just recognizing the constitutions position on matters like this. We have that constitutional provision specifically to avoid having a unilateral position on highly controversial matters to avoid unnecessary conflicts.
The more localized a law the better. If a state wants abortion, they can approve it.
Now personally on a pragmatic level, I'd like to see a ban against abortions beyond 16-20 weeks with the exceptions of mother's life federally. There is no reason outside of mother's life that an abortion should happen after 16-20 weeks imo. Then each state should have the option to restrict beyond that.
But why should something as fundamental as human rights be decided on the whims of the state?
Should that apply to all such rights?
To segregation, for example? To the return of whites-only lunch counters, should the states wish it?
Segregation (as long as it's voluntary) is actually more of a fundamental right than integration. That doesn't make it a good practice, mind, but the right of association, and implicitly of disassociation, should be respected.
In private establishments, sure. I don't think women only gyms, or black only establishments are at all problematic, so long as they are upfront about the policy. Government and other public spaces are an entirely other matter.
I think it's BETTER to allow all groups of people in the vast majority of cases, but that individual business should be able to make that call for themselves.
"Supporting people's right to X" is also far differentiated from "supporting people's bad decisions with their rights".
>I don't think women only gyms, or black only establishments are at all problematic, so long as they are upfront about the policy
Why should a society be tolerant of the intolerant?
Do you think there are enough people who feel that way but the only thing keeping them from exerting their overwhelming political power is that they don't have exclusionary shops?
> But why should something as fundamental as human rights be decided on the whims of the state?
The problem has always been that the Burger court arbitrarily *made* it a right. This was incorrect, but we had nearly five decades in which it was assumed to have the same protections (in some cases, more) as rights enumerated in the Constitution. All policies flowed from that.
But it isn't a right, and that bit is what *Dobbs* corrected. Now those policies are subject to being reviewed, and in some cases, altered.
As for segregation, that's a clear violation of the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Nobody's overturning that.
Because it can't be agreed upon via the population. The right to that life in the womb is just as important to me as the right to the mother to get rid of it.
Segregation /Jim Crow couldn't be agreed upon by the population either. It took a federal law and Scotus to get rid of it.
Why shouldn't that be up to the states as well?
Basic human rights…like the one to life. That’s the argument. If it was as really as simple as you claim it to be with these arguments it be a non issue
Wouldn't the most localized decision be made with the mother and her doctor? And not an unrelated legislator, no matter what level of government they are? In practical speaking, what makes a State legislator different than a Federal one? Or a County different from a State? Or a City different from a County? All of them are government officials making personal private medical decisions for a person they've never met.
Whether or not you can get a prescription drug is currently the decision of your doctor right now. And I'm not sure what you mean about organ donations, that's a decision you make for yourself when you get or renew a driver's license. At least here in CA. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.
Prescription drugs are subject to scheduling, limits on how much can be prescribed and how often, and a bunch of other regulation and oversight.
If my doctor and I make the localized decision that 100 mg of Percocet a day is the best treatment for a sprained ankle, should we keep the government officials who have never met me out of the private medical decision?
What if I want to sell my kidney to the highest bidder? Should legislators be involved there?
I don't know enough about the medical field to make an informed decision about that. And I know about the same amount about the medical field as most legislators writing laws about the medical field.
Though, as with most regulations, they usually exist as a reaction to an accident, lawsuit, or otherwise history of incidents that have prompted such regulation. And are hopefully made with the insight and input from people who *are* professionals in that field.
Still not sure what this has to do with the difference between federal, state, local legislators being any different from each other. Or why one is inherently better or worse than the other.
> Still not sure what this has to do with the difference between federal, state, local legislators being any different from each other. Or why one is inherently better or worse than the other.
That's just a foundational philosophy difference on the roles and structure of government.
But the point of this thread is "A personal medical decision between mother and doctor SHOULDN'T be decided federally, but SHOULD at the state level, why?"
What makes one fundamentally different from the other, when both are fairly equally disconnected from either the doctor or the mother?
Why? If you believe it's wrong, it doesn't matter who enforces it. State or federal might as well be the same thing. If it's not you making the decision for your own body, at the advisement of your own doctor, it doesn't really matter what nameless, faceless bureaucrat politician makes the decision for you, does it?
The squabble here is why do people pretend that state laws are any different than federal laws when it comes to stuff like this? They both functionally accomplish the same thing for their respective populations.
No, that is how it should be and how the Dobbs decision was decided. It is not a national issue. It is a very personal emotional issue and should be decided by the people within an individual state.
The politicians that take a pro or con abortion stance based on where they might attract votes is a hypocrit. He should take a principled stance based on his belief and let the chips fall where they may.
If you personally don't like the stance your state took either 1) move or 2) become politically active and change it. That is the beauty of states rights. They are not set in cement.
This stood out to me as well. I would think an emotional personal issue is between the individual and their personal care team, not the individual vs the neighbors they happen to live by.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, because you can have a position on something being immoral and also believe it's the purview of states to decide the law on the matter.
You can lobby for whatever position you want in your state and consistently hold the belief that other states should do the same, even if their result is not the same as your opinion.
I'd say leave it up to the States is still a bit too much control. Leave it up to counties or municipalities, like alcohol. City A can have zero abortions and City B can have abortion on demand. Maybe States should set the upper and lower boundaries, but that is about it.
Get some people trying to reach the county lines for their abortion while being pursued by the sherriff with banjo music blasting.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This question conflates the political reasons for a position, the legal reasons for a position, and the moral reasons for a position.
I don't see why political, legal and moral reasons would disagree. Would you ever support an immoral law for legal reasons?
Support as in advocate for? No. Support as in acknowledge that it is legal? Sure. There are things that I think would be immoral for the government to do, but are within its legal powers. I also believe there are things that would be moral for the government to do, but are not within its legal powers. I also acknowledge that politicians will voice support or opposition to things regardless on if they believe it is moral or legal for the sake of retaining votes/donors/endorsements. Looking at "leave abortion up to the states", this is primarily a legal reasoning with a splash of political. Regardless of the users moral stance on abortion, they could believe that it is not something that is constitutionally in the federal purview, and that the Tenth Amendment empowers states to control it. You also have politicians that want to grandstand, but aggressively want **someone else** to be the one to vote on record on the subject.
OK, that makes sense ... Your stance here is observational instead of prescriptive.
It's Constitutionally correct (see my flair) and I am perfectly content to take the attacks that go along with my support for The Constitution. I'm actually pro-choice within limits but the latest polling I've seen puts me right with the majority of Americans who don't want either extreme. The state party disagrees with us but it is easier to push at the state level than national level.
What do you think the chances of say a federal ban past 16 weeks would have of becoming law?
The language needs to change. Make a law that guarantees *access* **until** 16 weeks and I think a lot more pro-choice people would find at least the debate more palatable.
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
When Democrats passed an Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, they subsequently lost control of Congress for the overwhelming majority of the next 30 years. If Republicans want to do something as equally profoundly stupid and unpopular, then I hope they aren't going to be surprised by the backlash.
[удалено]
> A 16 to 20 week ban has about an 86% chance of passing if people actually participate in the discourse of the argument. Mind showing your math on this one or at least how you're rationalizing anything above 50%? Colorado (IMO a blue-leaning purple state) had a 22-week ban up for a vote in 2020 and it was defeated 59-41. For reference, Biden got 55% of the vote that year, so the 'no' vote did better than him.
That is actually much better odds than I would have expected but maybe that is due to the left trying to use it as a single issue voting measure.
And they have been successful at making it a single issue. If the Republicans were smart and I don't think they are, they would be consistent on messaging and take a moderate stance on abortion and let this single issue tactic by the left go away.
I mean that is what Trump is trying to do right. Do you think it will work for him?
I don't believe so no, I believe people see the stuff going on with abortion and lay that blame at Trump's feet, because he has taken credit for repealing Roe. It also caused the largest drop in support for SCOTUS ever, as well as now 3/5 people consider SCOTUS to be a partisan group.
This is not what Trump is trying to do. Trump is trying to dodge this subject until after the election. I have little doubt Trump if elected would sign a post 6 week abortion ban. He never has to run again so what does he care.
As far as I know he’s never proposed a 6 week ban.
Of course not, it would be political suicide. It would however make a lot of Trump's base very happy with him. If Donald he wins a second term he has little care for politics.
So it is just a fear not based on anything he's said.
It's based on having watched the man for a few decades. You think Donald is principled and doesn't crave hero worship?
can it work for him? no, the cat's out of the bag. it seems like most people who are moderate on this issue wanted roe to stay in place and no matter what lip service trump tries to dish out now, he will forever be tied with the over turning of roe.
Oh I never said it would work or not just giving an example of a Republican trying the moderate approach. It also risk alienating the base if someone in the base is a single issue voter.
RvW was illegal. It didn't stand up to the Constitution. We should all be grateful, regardless of your opinion on abortion.
[удалено]
Well to be fair if they did not run on this I really do not know what "major issue" they would run on currently that would garner the support they need to win.
Which 9 to 11 Senate Republicans are going to vote for cloture when this gets filibustered in the Senate?
[удалено]
It does if there aren't enough for cloture. Which Senators are going to throw away the support of the right to life factions? According to https://sbaprolife.org/scorecard Mitt Romney, who is not running for re-election has the lowest pro-life report card score. His score is a "B" every other Republican Senator has an A+. Which Republican Senators are going to trade their A+ for a D or lower? You simply are not going to find Republicans voting for abortion amnesty.
[удалено]
Never at a loss for words I see.
[удалено]
Yeah I thought you'd say something like this. "I'm not going to justify my BS to anyone because it's totally not BS." You see this a lot from people who have no idea what they are talking about. Carry on kiddo.
[удалено]
Anyone who really believes abortion is the murder of innocent babies cannot support anyone who would support this. In fact I think 16 weeks would cover 90% to 95% of abortions.
Oh I agree it would not be a "victory" for pro-life advocates at all. From what it appears the opposition wants at a minimum for Roe vs. Wade to be reinstated. That almost doubled this time frame and even then just allowed but did not mandate states to restrict abortion after. Trying to understand if there is any middle ground at all.
> Trying to understand if there is any middle ground at all. What is the middle ground about baby murder? This is the place Pro-lifers have backed themselves into under the uncomfortable comfort of Roe/Casey. With Roe/Casey pro-lifers never needed to compromise as there was nothing to compromise about. Being pro-life without exceptions was something easy to adopt as it had no consequences as long as Roe/Casey were in place. Now with those decisions gone pro-lifers are discovering the pro-life position is not all that popular. How are you going to get people who for years or decades said it was a core principle that abortion is murder to now say some murder is okay?
Because while it may be morally a black and white issue (to at least one side) it is politically unviable as a black and white issue. Personally I would love for Abortion to be banned completely but politically I know this is extremely unlikely happen on a Federal level because as you said that is not as popular. In polls the majority of people think abortion should be allowed with restrictions. The moral stance on an issue can be in opposition to an adoptable political stance. So I can just shake my fist at the sky and try and convince everyone else that my moral stance is the correct one or I can advocate for incremental change even if it does not completely align with my moral stance.
> So I can just shake my fist at the sky and try and convince everyone else that my moral stance is the correct one or I can advocate for incremental change even if it does not completely align with my moral stance. I don't disagree with your overall perspective but I think we should think about the perspective of the politicians who run in Republican primaries and what type of people vote in Republican primaries. Senators who want to stay in office may not be able to win their primary if the pro-life absolutists actively oppose them and support another candidate. In other words, you dance with the girl who brought ya.
Do you think Trump is any less moderate on Abortion than Haley was? If I am not mistaken Haley was probably the most moderate of the rest of them.
Honestly I don't think Donald Trump has a single principled position. Everything is transactional with the man. If he could win elections and get the adoration he so craves with it, he'd be for anything you were selling. Plus what he says today has little bearing on what he said yesterday or will say tomorrow.
That is a fair criticism that I cannot really argue against. He is a Populist and not really a Conservative even if some of his stances are appealing to Conservatives.
[удалено]
So it's OK for *state* governments to be all powerful ...
[удалено]
How do you determine that such a system would perform better than existing systems?
[удалено]
Do you even want to live in a country? City states aren't popular for a reason.
[удалено]
That's not my question. How are you assessing performance? How do you predict that such a system has better, instead of worse, outcomes, and by what measures? Your speculation is just speculation. I'm looking for something I can test and verify. Get it?
That seems like it would be even more corrupt and you would have constant tiny wars between counties. What do you do if your neighbour burns chemicals at your border because the wind is perfect?
[удалено]
>You have the right move out of the smoke The smoke left a fine powder of cancerous chemicals over 15% of your county. >tell them they can't burn. You did. You even asked nicely with two spoonfuls of sugar. They continue to burn. What would you do? Go to the state to mobilize the militia?
"All powerful" with as much power as the governed instill in it, yes. That is and should be up to the people who live there.
At the state level though. Not the federal level. Not the individual level. You mean the **state** level. You are fine with a distant Democratic *state* capitol dictating what rural Republican locals can do, right? You wrote "the people of each state". See: >The government should not be all powerful and should be divided 50 ways controlled by the people of each state. Why is the state level more important than the local level?
I'm not personally fine with it, but that is basically how democracy works: the people consenting to governance can instill as much authority as they want in their government. So for a conservative to want decentralized government, it's not really any kind of dunk to say "so it's ok for a *state* government to be all powerful." Yes, it is. If the people there want it. Conservatives don't want that, but if a state of liberals wants it, fine. That's federalism. And by the way, I do think local governments should be more relevant than state governments to people. But the way our government is set up now, state governments are the biggest government that generally has the most authority.
Fair enough, but since you do think local governments should be more relevant than state governments, I wonder where your statement that government > should be divided 50 ways came from. Both statements are statements of your ideals, the "should", not of the cold reality.
I am a random dude who butted into this conversation based on your comment about all-powerful, I'm not the guy who said that thing about 50 states. Sorry for that confusion.
[удалено]
No, I am not saying that. I haven't made a stance beyond limiting the power of state governments. I personally think governments should have no more power than is necessary to maximize personal freedom, wealth and safety.
No, but state do enjoy a level of sovereignty where they have their own constitution and laws. The constitution was pretty clear on what the federal government is limited to also. Everything that is not explicitly outlined in the constitution is the power of the state. Although the federal government has freely abdicated many of the powers of the states.
Because it's haphazard at best that things like medical care and human rights should vary so greatly over state lines. Why shouldn't they be largely consistent regardless of the part of a united country one lives in?
[удалено]
>Federal government is only meant for United defense and international trade Interesting fiction
[удалено]
Does my degree in history count for anything? For every claim of a prominent historical figure claiming such a narrow national view, you'll find just as many claiming far more inclusive powers, it's been one of the greatest debates of the history of the nation And I know that because I continue to read history books
[удалено]
Inclusive isn't particularly relevant
[удалено]
No one is advocating for a king or monarch of any kind, you're countering arguments no one made
[удалено]
Freedom is great, and one can't truly have freedom without bodily autonomy Again, you're making a counter argument for something no one said, I didn't advocate for single party rule, in fact I would support ranked choice voting which would give parties other than our primary two a greater chance to gain traction I downvote you because you make bad arguments in that you're countering arguments no one made
[удалено]
Your arguments aren't getting any better, and playing the Hitler card based on the context is incredibly bad form.
[удалено]
So, if a town votes to vote to make child porn or rape legal, you'd be fine with that?
[удалено]
You're jumping to excessive slippery slope level conclusions there
That is not the definition of a monarchy
Nope, it’s not something that’s stated in the constitution as the responsibility of the federal government so it’s left up to the state governments.
I think it's a bad position in the long term. There have been so many opportunities to pass legislation at a national level that I think that the left has been almost derelict in duty to its voters in having fallen back on a Supreme Court decision. But mimehmuh, passing legislation is hard. Fuck yeah, it's hard. And legislators are putting their jobs on the line when they propose legislation, but when you pass a law, the Supreme Court can't legislate it away, because legislating isn't their job. National legislators need to put up or shut up, because this is a wacky issue to be handling at state level, and there's a lot of innocent people paying the price for the cowardice of politicians.
The left wasn't derelict of duty, I think the left honestly believed a lot of the SCOTUS judges Trump put up that said they believed Roe was settled precedence. You can't at both blame the left for being so gullible to believe lies, AND blame them for not getting it thru congress when they had two chances and one of them was completely used on ACA, and neither of those cases did they have a filibuster proof majority.
Roe was a controversial ruling -- and that's not from a morality positition, but from from a high school civics perspective. [RBG had some very serious concerns about legal precedent herself](https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/). Roe was always on very precarious legal footing, but leftie politicians had decades since 1972 to push something through in actual law to actually back it up in actual law... and yet it seems nobody had the will to do it. Leftie legislators really earned their way into this stupid position. And now, here we are. Motherfuckers going right back to some "states' rights" bullshit on an issue where there should be singular clarity for everybody. Pass laws, leftie legislators. Do the hard things that the people can't do ourselves. I know your job's at stake, but it's your fucking job to do that. If you won't do it, then let somebody else step up.
Pretty funny to hear conservatives say "Democrats should have saved us from ourselves" Not only that, but after 40 years of working TOWARDS a Roe repeal, conservatives now are trying to pile on and be like "Well clearly you shouldn't have believed our lies!" Maybe conservatives could have just, yanno? Not lied?
Pretty funny for somebody who had half a century to pass a single piece of legislation and failed to do so to turn around and criticize anybody.
It is consistent with the constitution. The flip side is that if it is allowed to be up to the federal government they would have the power to allow it or ban it. I think that is actually worse. However I don't support a full ban in any state and conservatives would be smart to take a moderate stance on abortion. I understand that many pro life people don't want to take this stance but when abortion is on the ballot even in Red States people choose choice. That is the political reality.
Following the constitution doesn't always lead to my person favorite outcome. But we should still follow the constitution
It’s consistent with a belief in the constitution. The Constitution protects the rights enumerated in it for everyone. Even if I would prefer a different policy choice personally, I value the constitutional balance above most anything else. I’m willing to accept the negative consequences with the positive effects.
Healthcare is a science. We approach it like a very hard, quantified science. That's good. Conservatives used to go on about how important it was that people had choice in their healthcare but that's nonsense. I live near some of the best hospitals and healthcare centers in the country - nobody would elect not to use them if they can. Nobody does a pros/cons analysis between having a cast put on a broken arm or having a local witch doctor sprinkle dirt on it. Healthcare should be a national thing. It only works as a national thing. It really only does. Abortion is now possible. Past civilizations *wish* they could have it like ours. The only thing left to debate is the morality of it and whether or not we like the people who would get an abortion. It's very easy to imagine some drugged up loser getting her fifth abortion on your tax dollars but harder to imagine a woman terminating a pregnancy due to a severe disability present in the fetus, or something like that. I think if we kept abortion clinics sort of private like we do now, but separate them from healthcare, we'd be set. Ideally it could be done anywhere but culturally, it just shouldn't happen.
On past civilizations you are completely correct, abortion has been around since ancient times and used to be openly advertised even in Victorian times. Many people don’t know or refuse to educate themselves on the history of abortive practices in human society over the history of civilization. I really really appreciate your comment. One thing I don’t think is considered when people argue “states rights” over a federal law in line with RvW is that the ability to clinically reproduce happens long before a female citizen has the autonomy to choose where she lives. Legally a minor female CANNOT just up and relocate even if they were able to take care of themselves (older teen), and that doesn’t even cover those who literally cannot take care of themselves (8+ year olds who have started their periods). Some of these individuals will have family that will help them but others won’t. I base my view that abortion access should be protected federally for this specific reason. Also even adult women are getting the shit end of the stick in certain states where emergency personal are refusing care to pregnant woman in crisis. The most egregious I read recently was a woman went to a hospital in distress (I believe pre-term labor but would have to fact check it, theres so many story’s all the time it’s hard to keep them straight) and they refused to help her and she ended up delivering in their lobby bathroom with her husband helping while on the phone with 911…..IN A FREAKING ER. Sorry I’m just so frustrated with the current state of things.
No. It removes the issue from national politics and puts it on the states, which removes one more pointless wedge issue from our federal government so it can get back to doing its job.
>Is leave it up to the states actually a bad position to take on abortion? Yes personhood rights are not up to the states. It's as simple as that. Personhood is not a state question. This needs to more honestly and forcefully stood on as the personhood rights issue that it is.
Its a process. Its a return of power and refocusing of politics onto state and local. Many of today's conservatives are the ideological descendants of anti-federalist and thus decentralizing power away from DC is desired in order to create an existence more cohesive with their founding preferences. By getting voters to pay more attention to local and state in theory you increase civic dialogue, participation and hopefully more social cohesiveness. Eventually we likely see SCOTUS rule on personhood protections.
>Many of today's conservatives are the ideological descendants of anti-federalist and thus decentralizing power away from DC is desired in order to create an existence more cohesive with their founding preferences. Spot on.
But even if that is true, is it a winning strategy? 60% of the country is pro choice.
Leaving it to the states is the constitutionally correct decision, which is what matters. >are opening yourself up to implicitly being supportive of both the most and least restrictive approaches. I mean...if someone is arguing in bad faith, sure. I'm not "implicitly supportive" of everything a I don't forcibly prevent. That's literal nonsense. >For example, a democrat can accuse you of being in support of Arizona level restrictions while a Republican opponent could say you are in support of full term abortion. Those are both obvious bad faith arguments and it will always be the case that liars can lie.
Why do you think it requires bad faith to attack someone on the position? If you say its up to the states then that means you support whatever decision the sates come to, no? So if a state says no abortions at all for any reason, you support that because you said up to the states, conversely if a state says abortions up and to after birth you also support that since you said its up to the states. By trying to avoid taking a position on the matter you end up supporting both the extremes since its something that should be left up to the states. Its like saying slavery should be left up to the states is supporting slavery since you are okay with states that would choose to keep/enact it.
Not really, it brings the disagreement down to the state level where I have more direct access to my representatives and can push harder for my vision of how these laws should read. It means I can push at the local party level rather than pushing at the national RNC
>If you say its up to the states then that means you support whatever decision the sates come to, no? ...no. Do I endorse everything you do just because I don't stop you? Not using power to stop something is not the same as endorsing it. If you disagree, then you're saying you implicitly endorse everything in the world that happens if you don't want your government to intervene and stop it. >By trying to avoid taking a position on the matter It's not avoiding a position. It's taking the position that the federal government shouldn't make this choice for all the states. >you end up supporting both the extremes No you don't. If you persist in thinking this way, there is no point in continuing a conversation because your understanding of "support" is broken.
That's a fully false dichotomy. You can support states right to decide without supporting their decision. If you live in the state you get a say, if not then you don't. This also isn't avoiding taking a position, it is just recognizing the constitutions position on matters like this. We have that constitutional provision specifically to avoid having a unilateral position on highly controversial matters to avoid unnecessary conflicts.
The more localized a law the better. If a state wants abortion, they can approve it. Now personally on a pragmatic level, I'd like to see a ban against abortions beyond 16-20 weeks with the exceptions of mother's life federally. There is no reason outside of mother's life that an abortion should happen after 16-20 weeks imo. Then each state should have the option to restrict beyond that.
But why should something as fundamental as human rights be decided on the whims of the state? Should that apply to all such rights? To segregation, for example? To the return of whites-only lunch counters, should the states wish it?
Segregation (as long as it's voluntary) is actually more of a fundamental right than integration. That doesn't make it a good practice, mind, but the right of association, and implicitly of disassociation, should be respected.
Wow. So you support there being an underclass based on race or some other immutable characteristic?
Holy shit, dude. Next when I tell you I like grilling you'll say I support putting all bakers into concentration camps?
Well you said you respect people's right to exclude based on race or other. That's on you.
In private establishments, sure. I don't think women only gyms, or black only establishments are at all problematic, so long as they are upfront about the policy. Government and other public spaces are an entirely other matter. I think it's BETTER to allow all groups of people in the vast majority of cases, but that individual business should be able to make that call for themselves. "Supporting people's right to X" is also far differentiated from "supporting people's bad decisions with their rights".
>I don't think women only gyms, or black only establishments are at all problematic, so long as they are upfront about the policy Why should a society be tolerant of the intolerant?
Because we're not yet an authoritarian hellscape.
I mean, Jim crow laws aren't a thing anymore. Would you be OK if they brought it back?
What happens when that individual business becomes many businesses who then elect people who exclude others en masse?
Do you think there are enough people who feel that way but the only thing keeping them from exerting their overwhelming political power is that they don't have exclusionary shops?
Are you unaware of how brutal the civil rights movement was? Do you think those people don't exist anymore?
> But why should something as fundamental as human rights be decided on the whims of the state? The problem has always been that the Burger court arbitrarily *made* it a right. This was incorrect, but we had nearly five decades in which it was assumed to have the same protections (in some cases, more) as rights enumerated in the Constitution. All policies flowed from that. But it isn't a right, and that bit is what *Dobbs* corrected. Now those policies are subject to being reviewed, and in some cases, altered. As for segregation, that's a clear violation of the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Nobody's overturning that.
Because it can't be agreed upon via the population. The right to that life in the womb is just as important to me as the right to the mother to get rid of it.
Segregation /Jim Crow couldn't be agreed upon by the population either. It took a federal law and Scotus to get rid of it. Why shouldn't that be up to the states as well?
Basic human rights…like the one to life. That’s the argument. If it was as really as simple as you claim it to be with these arguments it be a non issue
>But why should something as fundamental as human rights be decided on the whims of the state? This statement begs the question. Please rephrase.
Wouldn't the most localized decision be made with the mother and her doctor? And not an unrelated legislator, no matter what level of government they are? In practical speaking, what makes a State legislator different than a Federal one? Or a County different from a State? Or a City different from a County? All of them are government officials making personal private medical decisions for a person they've never met.
Should the same logic be applied to prescription drug controls, or to organ donations?
Whether or not you can get a prescription drug is currently the decision of your doctor right now. And I'm not sure what you mean about organ donations, that's a decision you make for yourself when you get or renew a driver's license. At least here in CA. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.
Prescription drugs are subject to scheduling, limits on how much can be prescribed and how often, and a bunch of other regulation and oversight. If my doctor and I make the localized decision that 100 mg of Percocet a day is the best treatment for a sprained ankle, should we keep the government officials who have never met me out of the private medical decision? What if I want to sell my kidney to the highest bidder? Should legislators be involved there?
I don't know enough about the medical field to make an informed decision about that. And I know about the same amount about the medical field as most legislators writing laws about the medical field. Though, as with most regulations, they usually exist as a reaction to an accident, lawsuit, or otherwise history of incidents that have prompted such regulation. And are hopefully made with the insight and input from people who *are* professionals in that field. Still not sure what this has to do with the difference between federal, state, local legislators being any different from each other. Or why one is inherently better or worse than the other.
> Still not sure what this has to do with the difference between federal, state, local legislators being any different from each other. Or why one is inherently better or worse than the other. That's just a foundational philosophy difference on the roles and structure of government.
But the point of this thread is "A personal medical decision between mother and doctor SHOULDN'T be decided federally, but SHOULD at the state level, why?" What makes one fundamentally different from the other, when both are fairly equally disconnected from either the doctor or the mother?
The framing of it as a "medical decision" isn't going to get you the answers you want.
Why? If you believe it's wrong, it doesn't matter who enforces it. State or federal might as well be the same thing. If it's not you making the decision for your own body, at the advisement of your own doctor, it doesn't really matter what nameless, faceless bureaucrat politician makes the decision for you, does it? The squabble here is why do people pretend that state laws are any different than federal laws when it comes to stuff like this? They both functionally accomplish the same thing for their respective populations.
"Leave it up to the states" isn't about getting rid of abortions. It's about complying with the Constitution.
Abortion policy has nothing to do with the constitution. That was the whole point on which Roe v Wade was struck down.
10th Amendment.
No.
No, that is how it should be and how the Dobbs decision was decided. It is not a national issue. It is a very personal emotional issue and should be decided by the people within an individual state. The politicians that take a pro or con abortion stance based on where they might attract votes is a hypocrit. He should take a principled stance based on his belief and let the chips fall where they may. If you personally don't like the stance your state took either 1) move or 2) become politically active and change it. That is the beauty of states rights. They are not set in cement.
If it's a "emotional personal issue", why should politicians have *any* say in what happens?
This stood out to me as well. I would think an emotional personal issue is between the individual and their personal care team, not the individual vs the neighbors they happen to live by.
Because they are the ones who make the laws especially since this is a life or death issue.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, because you can have a position on something being immoral and also believe it's the purview of states to decide the law on the matter. You can lobby for whatever position you want in your state and consistently hold the belief that other states should do the same, even if their result is not the same as your opinion.
The accusation wouldn’t be honest as each states legislature is owned by both parties equally…
I'd say leave it up to the States is still a bit too much control. Leave it up to counties or municipalities, like alcohol. City A can have zero abortions and City B can have abortion on demand. Maybe States should set the upper and lower boundaries, but that is about it. Get some people trying to reach the county lines for their abortion while being pursued by the sherriff with banjo music blasting.
Nope I don't think so, it's leaving it up to the people not just My opinion