3 ms·

Making it easier for states to ban abortion is good for individual liberty?

by pylon 4y ago

minkzilla 4y ago
Yes, for the unborn.
gsibble 4y ago
It also makes it easier for states to expand access to abortion, including expanding it up through the 3rd trimester. Just today, CA put a Constitutional amendment on the ballot in November to allow up to the final minute abortions. That ruling gave power back to the people and state legislatures. It benefit blue states as much as red.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  That’s just as horrific as banning abortions altogether.
  - gsibble 4y ago
    But it's up to the people to decide. That's what freedom is.
- pylon 4y ago
  None of this sounds good for individual liberty. It just becomes an issue of are you lucky enough to live in a state that doesn't hate you
thepasswordis 4y ago
The court self limiting their own power, and pushing it down to an democratically elected body (the congress) is good for individual liberty.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  It’s literally not. Individual liberty is about freedom from government interference.
  - thepasswordis 4y ago
    So 9 unelected lifetime appointees should be able to dictate laws, but 538 democratically elected representatives that change every 2 years based in the will of the people shouldn’t? Huh.
VoodooJuJu 4y ago
It's about giving power back to the states, and in turn the people. So a state and its people would have the power to decide on something like abortion rather than a single centralized leviathan-authority.
- chimprich 4y ago
  > power back to the states, and in turn the people That sounds quite Stalinist. The people are not the state. > So a state and its people would have the power to decide on something like abortion rather than a single centralized leviathan-authority. Right, so your federal government is a centralised Hobbesian leviathan, but state government is not? How is state government not centralised? It's just centralised at a different level. You know what would not be centralised? Allowing individuals bodily autonomy. Let them decide whether they want an abortion, not have them be forced to carry foetuses to term against their will.
  - VoodooJuJu 4y ago
    On the particular of abortion, in terms of liberty, the baby's liberty must be considered, not only the mother's. In the general case of state vs federal sovereignty, state sovereignty is closer to the individual is and more malleable/escapable than a federal sovereign, and is thus preferable (state sovereignty was the original ideal of the United States and the founders go on at length about the benefits of this arrangement.)
- pylon 4y ago
  And if the people choose to vote to limit individual liberty of others then this decision is still good for individual liberty?

Making it easier for states to ban abortion is good for individual liberty?

by pylon 4y ago

Making it easier for states to ban abortion is good for individual liberty?

minkzilla 4y ago

Yes, for the unborn.

gsibble 4y ago

It also makes it easier for states to expand access to abortion, including expanding it up through the 3rd trimester. Just today, CA put a Constitutional amendment on the ballot in November to allow up to the final minute abortions. That ruling gave power back to the people and state legislatures. It benefit blue states as much as red.

zeroonetwothree 4y ago
That’s just as horrific as banning abortions altogether.
- gsibble 4y ago
  But it's up to the people to decide. That's what freedom is.
pylon 4y ago
None of this sounds good for individual liberty. It just becomes an issue of are you lucky enough to live in a state that doesn't hate you

thepasswordis 4y ago

The court self limiting their own power, and pushing it down to an democratically elected body (the congress) is good for individual liberty.

zeroonetwothree 4y ago
It’s literally not. Individual liberty is about freedom from government interference.
- thepasswordis 4y ago
  So 9 unelected lifetime appointees should be able to dictate laws, but 538 democratically elected representatives that change every 2 years based in the will of the people shouldn’t? Huh.

VoodooJuJu 4y ago

It's about giving power back to the states, and in turn the people. So a state and its people would have the power to decide on something like abortion rather than a single centralized leviathan-authority.

chimprich 4y ago
> power back to the states, and in turn the people That sounds quite Stalinist. The people are not the state. > So a state and its people would have the power to decide on something like abortion rather than a single centralized leviathan-authority. Right, so your federal government is a centralised Hobbesian leviathan, but state government is not? How is state government not centralised? It's just centralised at a different level. You know what would not be centralised? Allowing individuals bodily autonomy. Let them decide whether they want an abortion, not have them be forced to carry foetuses to term against their will.
- VoodooJuJu 4y ago
  On the particular of abortion, in terms of liberty, the baby's liberty must be considered, not only the mother's. In the general case of state vs federal sovereignty, state sovereignty is closer to the individual is and more malleable/escapable than a federal sovereign, and is thus preferable (state sovereignty was the original ideal of the United States and the founders go on at length about the benefits of this arrangement.)
pylon 4y ago
And if the people choose to vote to limit individual liberty of others then this decision is still good for individual liberty?