Should States be allowed to ban abortion?
Currently, States can not completely eliminate abortion. Roe v. Wade prevents this.
But is this right? An issue like abortion is a very controversial, up in the air issue. If the people of a certain state wished to completely eliminate, should they have the right to? Or is it better that Roe v. Wade remain a Federal Law that legalizes abortion in every state no matter how the people in one state may feel about it?
So it's basically an issue of Federal Government vs. State's Rights.
Yes
Side Score: 38
|
 |
No
Side Score: 39
|
|
|
|
|
Even though i believe Abortion should be legal, I still believe that the people of each State should have the right to choose whether it should be legal in their state. Abortion should be a state right, not a Federal law. Big Government doesn't have a right to tell us whether killing a fetus is right or not. With Roe v. Wade overturned, people will be able to have more of a say on just how Abortion should handled in each state. Power to the people I say. Side: yes
5
points
I disagree with the premise of your debate as you laid it out in your description. I believe that it is not an issue of Federal vs. State rights, but instead an issue of government vs. individual rights. A right to privacy is guaranteed in the constitution. This means no laws, be they state, federal or otherwise, should be allowed to interfere with this right. Therefore the federal government must step in and ensure that an individuals rights and not being violated. In this case the courts are defending these rights. Power to the people...the individuals who decide if they should have an abortion or not. Side: No
then let them. the fact is, if the people of a state want to ban it, god damn it, this is the United States of America, let them ban it. if someone wants to cross state lines, like i said, this is the USA, so let them cross state lines. My point is that Big Government shouldn't be taking away State's Rights, especially on an issue that's so controversial and up in the air. Big Government shouldn't be deciding how sacred life is, cause maybe, just maybe, we may be allowing Infanticide. that's no good. Plus, this takes away the ability of Big Government to tax the hell out of us so they can pay for abortions. Side: yes
I agree. I know some cities have rules against or for abortion, that might be contrary to their states' decisions. I think the state-level decision is about right, but the same argument could be used to put it into a smaller scope. What decides what the right level of the decision should be? I guess just practicality and simplicity? Side: yes
That's exactly right. I'm opposed to abortion but I believe the federal government has no say. the Tenth Amendment. "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." Which means the states have the power to regulate it or the people themselves can do what they want. Side: yes
3
points
Yes I believe they should. The reason I say this is because abortion is like murder, you are taking an unborn baby and in reality killing it by taking away its chance to enter this world. Whether it be an unborn or embryo, it deserves the same right to live as a human being who has already entered this world. Side: yes
2
points
I want decentralized government. The people in a given state should decide (not the feds). If the majority in a given state want to abolish abortion, then it doesn't make sense that a minority can keep them from doing just that in a democracy. If the minority had zero options, then I would hesitate to give the majority so much power. But the minority has plenty of options. 1. abstain from sex until a child is desired. 2. use contraceptives until a child is desired. 3. put the child up for adoption. 4. drive to a state that allows abortions. 5. educate the majority about the virtues of abortion. There is no reason for a minority in a given state to have more power than the majority in a democracy if the minority has other options it can employ. Side: yes
Even though I am in favor of totally ending this terrible practice, I favor in this argument the states being able to ban abortion. In the bigger picture however, our DOI and our Constitution protect life and our posterity and life cannot be taken away except by due process. I favor abortion be made illegal in ALL cases except when a mother's life is in danger. We need to stop this practice Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
This is a very touchy subject for me. My religion doesn't approve of abortion and I PERSONALLY am not for it. However, I do believe that states should have the right to decide what is best for their state. I also believe personally that abortion should be illegal unless in extreem situations. I feel that anyone who lays down willingly <-- inficized on willingly, should have to carry the responsibility of the child or give it up for adoption. I do not believe that it should be illegal in extreem cases such as; rape, drug addiction, incest or a child. However, I believe in order to have an abortion, there should be a police report on the rape and a police report stating, "hey, I was breaking the law doing drugs, ended up pregnant and need an abortion." We already have a law that says you can drop off any baby you don't want at a police station, hospital or fire department without persicution. As far as a child is concerned, if the child is under 12, there should be an investigation and mommy and daddy need to be arrested for allowing that child to be left unattended in order to get pregnant. Side: yes
1
point
abortion is cruel and its stupid. if you make a baby, youve made your bed and you should lie in it. If imature people dont want a baby then should learn not to have unprotected sex. they teach you in high school to have safesex so its no excuse. People who decide on abortion really just need to learn to grow up. Side: yes
While I personally believe Abortion should be legal in most cases, I understand the split in America’s views on this issue. Because my issue on Abortion has changed in the last few years, but I admit I’m very uncomfortable with the decision I have made. I believe the State’s should have the right to choose whether it should be legal. America will never agree whole heartily on this issue, and for some the issue is not abortion, but federal control of funds for the right to have an abortion. Abortion should be a State right, not a Federal law. Currently it’s used for political fodder to divide America. When you allow Big Government to make decisions on life and death it eventually makes you cold on the meaning of what constitutes right and wrong in other areas of health/rights. Just like the excesses in current in IRS expansion, we should be careful to allow government to control every major issue. Americans will always argue about the rights/wrongs of Abortion. Take the issue off the Federal table. Off the table People will be able to have more of a say on just how Abortion should be handled in each state. While giving the decision to the States will have issues for some, it’s the best way to take this decisive issue off the table. Side: Yes
|
And I would argue it does not matter how they would vote because some rights are and should be guaranteed on a national level. And I'd not be so confident at least a few would force that child to have a child whist waiving flag and cross. I do not trust them to be level-headed. Side: No
3
points
Majority rules. Since when do people like you and me look in the paper and see ' State wide vote abortion yes or no? ' We do not see anything like that. The government doesn't trust us to pick our own president ( electoral college ) so how can we be trusted on issues like abortion? Side: No
The electoral college system was NOT made because of distrust of our ability to choose a president. It was made probably so that each vote has more of an influence (as in, the decision is more local, so your vote could be one in a few hundred thousand, and not in a few hundred million). Side: yes
3
points
No - for the simple reason that there are a lot more redneck christian conservatives in some states than in others (the types who are usually voting anti-abortion), but that doesn't mean they should be making decisions for others. they should stick to worrying about their own personal lives instead of being so concerned about controlling everyone else. Side: No
It is the people's right. If citizens want one, they shall. The state can't decide, even if a majority of people want it gone. That's like saying three-fourths of people don't want water, that doesn't mean all the water should be taken away and be kept off-limits, right? Side: No
The states no longer have representation in Congress, not since the 17th Amendment was passed. Instead Congress is composed entirely of representatives elected by the people. That's an important distinction that few people recognize nor even care about. If the difference isn't immediately obvious then you fit into one of the two categories I mentioned. The states have no say in this matter, and it is a state issue. The Federal government exists to make decisions that affect the Federation of states. Instead of the tiered system of government that was intended we have a centralized government and puppet state and local governments that do whatever the national party tells them to do. Side: yes
Using food and religion in an abortion debate -.- well abortion is a little more a touchy subject than dinner guests not in the case of what dinner shall be served to the dinner guests. It doesn't really work that way between the 3 branches does it? since their are 3 a law can't be passed on a tie now can it? and if half the guests are Jewish then that would mean other people would have to say that they didn't want pork not just Jewish people so it would be a group decision now wouldn't it? Side: No
1
point
|
