Getting Beyond Roe: Why returning abortion to the states is a good idea

Reason Magazine ^ | August 8th, 2007 | Radley Balko

[dan1123]

I have a theory about the blue states that vote conservative locally. This theory works with liberal cities that vote for Republican mayors as well.

I call it “liberalization by distance”. It’s along the same lines as the psychological effect of a person who would act to help another alone, but would not when they are one in a crowd. If there is even the idea that there are a lot of people closer to a particular problem, then the individual is more likely to believe someone else should take care of it. This is the heart of liberalism politically. It takes a leader personality to have a conservative philosophy in the face of this psychology.

[AuH2ORepublican]

I agree that we should not rest until the right to life is recognized in a federal constitutional amendment, However, overturning Roe would be a step in the right direction-—too many idiots out there support abortion because “it’s a constitutional right” (sic).

As for your list of states, I think that Michigan and probably Florida would legislate to make abortion illegal (MI in particular is a very pro-life state, with many pro-life Democrats), although I agree that the liberal legislatures in NY, NJ and CA will keep legal abortion even after Roe is overturned.

[Arthur McGowan]

When the Constitution left illegalizing homicide up to the States, I’m sure it never crossed anybody’s mind that any State was ever going to LEGALIZE homicide.

As soon as the first State DID legalize homicide, it should be been told, “Change your law, or you are out of the Union.” But, of course, LBJ and Nixon weren’t about to do something along those lines! It would have been EXTREME. It wasn’t as though anybody was going to kill 45 MILLION people or something outlandish like that.

[Arthur McGowan]

I agree up to a point. I think at the moment a sperm joins with an ovum it is not a human being.

But the question is: Does your opinion fit the facts? The moment the sperm joins the egg, it can be MALE!!! Is it STILL part of the body of the mother? Can a WOMAN have XY cells as part of the her body? Or, at the moment the sperm unites with the egg, it can be FEMALE! Is it still part of the body of the FATHER??? Really?

See, you're not entitled to hold opinions that are directly contrary to scientific facts.

At the moment the sperm nucleus unites with the ovum nucleus, a new human body has come into existence, neither the father's body or the mother's body, but the body of their child. And wherever there is a living human body, it is murder to kill it deliberately.