Comments | prolife: NARAL and Huckabee Agree: Letting the States Decide is NOT the Way to Go!

natewillsheets in prolife

NARAL and Huckabee Agree: Letting the States Decide is NOT the Way to Go!

Nov 27, 2007 12:57

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has come out against the idea that states should decide whether to make abortion legal or not.

She then quotes an article talking about how Huckabee-as opposed to Fred Thompson-doesn’t agree with the “letting the states decide it” approach. And this is true, at least over actually condemning ( Read more... )

law, opinion, fred thompson, naral, pro-choice blogs

Comments 9

mary_goodnight November 28 2007, 01:21:16 UTC

Remember when we let the states decide about slavery? that didn't go so well...

natewillsheets November 28 2007, 17:49:12 UTC

*gasp!* You have just made the second most UNACCEPTABLE correlation in the abortion debate!

archangel__7 November 28 2007, 05:22:18 UTC

mary_goodnight raises an interesting question. Though I identify myself as socially conservative, I might have to break with other traditional understandings of that label insofar as we're dealing with issues which are not just wrong in some states instead of others, but fundamentally wrong.

While in purely pragmatic terms, letting the states decide would make the U.S. far more safer for the unborn, that fact is still rather incidental to the fact that significant numbers of people really do see abortion as prima facie wrong ( ... )

natewillsheets November 28 2007, 17:52:42 UTC

Well, since I'm a firm believer in baby steps, I also think that "letting the state decide" would be the way to go. Not inasmuch as I'm coming at it from a federalist standpoint such as Fred Thompson, but because the thought of us ratifying an amendment of any kind is laughable, much less one that would slap half of the country in the face. So when I say "let the states decide", I mean to actually do SOMETHING about abortion.

The agreement between NARAL and Huckabee is, indeed, an ironic one.

drecat November 28 2007, 19:36:31 UTC

I actually agree with you on this one. Something is better than nothing, and state-to-state restrictions are at least a starting point. And, if the states that restrict abortion tightly do so well, with proper regard to both mother and child, and create good examples for our cause, then that will become ammunition to use in a larger effort to remove abortion from our entire country.

(as far as Fred's "lack of enthusiasm" goes, actions speak louder than words. "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." - Theodore Roosevelt )

5010 November 28 2007, 20:54:36 UTC

I prefer states to decide. That way, people who respect life can live in states with others who respect life. The feds need to deal with stuff that goes on BETWEEN states not WITHIN states. The problem with feds mandating morality is that populous states then decide what is moral for people in less populous states. The states still determine what is murder and what the penalties are, let them also decide who can be protected from it.

natewillsheets November 28 2007, 20:58:25 UTC

Well, technically, a Human Life Amendment can't be forced onto the people. A billion states have to ratify it. (2/3=a billion, by the way) So it would have to have huge support. We won't be able to sneak it up there.

I generally agree that it's good to let the states decide, but since I don't think that "the states should decide" whether or not child-rape or murder is wrong, I'm going to put abortion into that category.

archangel__7 November 29 2007, 04:56:34 UTC

Dr. Beckwith reminded me in that book I mentioned a month or so ago in this community that federal authority was necessary to stem the trend of racism... in this respect, the law can and did play a moral role in teaching Americans to abhor racism, and I don't think any American today would agree that making states decide the fate of blacks is an acceptable principle, even if --in practical terms-- blacks would not be disenfranchised today as before... giving the legislative prerogative concerning suffrage and citizenship for blacks back to the states would still be an unthinkable gesture to make.

In similar measure, if the intrinsic value of human life knows no geography (in that I do not cease to be a person just because I cross a state line), then it really is a matter that transcends state lines. So while settling at state-level prerogative--while practically a huge step forward--would still be remain unthinkable in principle as a final solution ( ... )

5010 November 29 2007, 16:28:17 UTC

The problem is that we can't agree on the Absolute Values. Some believe humans and animals have a kinship and all life should be respected. Some say human bodies without minds are more valuable than animal bodies with minds. Some say human and animal minds are more valuable than human and animal bodies without minds. Some say only human minds are worthy. Each position has strong points and weak points ( ... )