Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wagglebee

You either believe in the 10th amendment or you don’t. Its not just for easy choices. Right now you have Roe v Wade which is considered “settled law” The chances of it getting overturned are practically zero. Which would you rather have abortion in a few states or abortion in all states? Its nice to dream about everything being perfect but that’s not how it usually works.

With gay marriage. We don’t want it in GA. NY I don’t care.


36 posted on 05/20/2015 8:54:55 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: Georgia Girl 2; Responsibility2nd; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses; TheOldLady; xzins; ..
You either believe in the 10th amendment or you don’t. Its not just for easy choices.

Of course I believe in the 10th Amendment, though I am also acutely aware that the word "right" NEVER appears in it. People have rights, governments have powers granted by the people.

Nevertheless, I also believe the rest of the Constitution, to wit:

No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
- Amendment V

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.
- Amendment XIV

You seem to believe that each stated DOES have the "right to deny a person due process and deprive them of their life.

Right now you have Roe v Wade which is considered “settled law” The chances of it getting overturned are practically zero.

It doesn't need to be "overturned" if we have elected officials who will actually abide by the Constitution.

I suggest you read Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe, few people actually have and it is quite illuminating on "settled law" and what it says about killing persons.

Which would you rather have abortion in a few states or abortion in all states?

This was the same argument put forth a century and a half ago, "would you rather have slavery in a few states or slavery in all states?" It was a morally and unconstitutionally untenable proposition then and it remains so today.

Your "solution" would mean that the only thing standing between a person's life and death was the location of its mother and her willingness to travel if necessary.

The pro-choice-by-state approach is nothing more than the libertarian version of "I'm personally opposed, but..." They know full well that well over 95% of abortions are performed in states that fully intend to keep it legal if given the option.

The "right" that Rand Paul, and it would appear you, want to enshrine is "settled law" that essentially states, "You can kill all the babies you want, but you might need to drive a couple hours to do it."

With gay marriage. We don’t want it in GA. NY I don’t care.

"I don't care" is basically the mantra of libertarianism. Libertarians are reluctant to show open support for the left's agenda, so they cloak it by claiming to not care.

40 posted on 05/20/2015 9:28:46 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson