Does refusing to donate a kidney to someone who will die without it enact tyranny upon them? If every woman's uterus is going to be the property of the state, then why not one of everyone's kidneys too?
Embarrassing.
Abortion is murder. Not donating a kidney is not murder.
You’re a pro-abort. That’s obvious. I guess no one ever told you that this is a pro-life site.
Ah yes, Big Murder's "not letting people kill babies is a form of slavery" talking point.
This is a PRO-LIFE site mvpel and you clearly don't belong here.
Michael, are you equating a kidney to a person? That isn’t logical. A kidney is replaceable. Persons are not. You appear to think that as long as one person is completely dependent on another, killing the dependent person isn’t murder. If I have misunderstood you, and dependency is not your criteria for withholding legal protection from unborn people, kindly explain what your criteria is.
As for ownership of the uterus, doesn’t the child who depends on that uterus for life have at minimum a tenancy in common with the mother? They are both sharing the same resources, and both for the same purpose, to live and grow and become everything a human can become. Why should the mom get more than a fifty percent share of that interest in survival?
EV, I respect your objective, but laws only work because people in large numbers cooperate with them. Every system that was ever tried has to have the consent of the governed to actually work. A presidential finding would be as subject to the capricious winds of political change as executive orders. It is only useful if you expect to be president for life.
I know you don’t want that, so if you really want to win back the people who believe that federalism is the best way to nurture the long-term rejection of abortion, you really have to answer the question of “how” that other posters are asking.
As an attorney working in the profession, which includes working with law enforcement at a state level, I can tell you with high confidence that your vehicle has no wheels. To whom will you issue your order to close all abortion facilities? Federal troops? That might work. Obama is laying the groundwork for you now by overturning our national inhibition against using federal military against civilians.
Or perhaps you’ll just issue the order to the state governors. How do you think compliance will go? I’m guessing pretty lousy. But even if they played along with such a usurpation of the state police power, good luck trying to get the state prosecutors to convict anybody for resisting a unilateral presidential order. There’s nothing to guide them. They just wouldn’t do it. You’d be stuck with brining in the federales again.
Indeed, you would provoke into being a coalition of dissenting states that would dwarf the anti-Obamacare coalition, because it would be supported by literally everyone except those few who share your eclectic view of executive power. It would be historic.
So, if you cannot put together a better justification for discarding federalism than you have done so far, you will never get out of the garage, let alone make it where you, and all other prolifers, really want to go. Yes, there is a dual sovereignty, but it is dual for a reason, to protect the states from, among other things, usurpation of the police power by an overeager, do-gooder federal. Those limits on the federal prevent Obama from forcing us into bad things like Obamacare, and they prevent the federal imposition of good things too. By design, both the power, and the obligation, to protect human life rest with the states, and that is where the battle is most likely to be won.