‘t

folks – Let’s not lose sight of the question and the answer – Amit indicated in his answer regarding Roe vs. Wade that he believed the Federal government was overstepping it’s bounds and that this is a States issue. This is not a question or answer on abortion, but one of States rights vs. consolidation of power in Washington. His answer was more than correct as he sighted the real issue, not knee jerk reaction to whether abortion is moral or not.

Whether your are for or against abortion, it should be decided at the State level. This is key to our unique democracy and puts more power and responsibility for decision to either ban or allow abortion with the people most impacted by such decision – you and me.

State’s Rights and upholding our Constitution is/should be a corner-stone of any Republican running for office. If you believe that Roe vs Wade or other legislation which impacts our children’s education, what identification we carry, etc. are issues better decided/legislated by those closer to us (and more easily held accountable) then you should vote the party that is against further consolidation of Federal powers

no idea if you’re still monitoring this thread, but it’s good to see you on SM, even if this crowd is working at a lower level than is usual lately. I hope you’re doing well, and I welcome the challenge you’re offering Moran. Do you think you’ve got what it takes to unseat him?

Best wishes, and get in touch when you get a chance. I’d love to catch up. Email is in sig…

-Salil (or Jay, whatever)

70 · Constructionist nonsense said

Or to put #68 in simpler terms, “states’ rights” and “constitutionality” are just conservative dogwhistles

this would be correct if you lose the word just. surely, abortion rights are not “just” dogwhstles for eugenics or ant-black racism, as anyone familiar with margaret sanger knows. likewise, states rights is central to federalism, to separation of powers, and to limited govt despite also being a dogwhstle for segregation.

Damn that’s good.

You can make a principled argument based on gender balance in society, which has nothing to do with the fetus, but rather about social balance and the value placed on adult women.

Yes. But social balance cannot come at the expense of individual liberty (to selectively abort female fetuses, in this context).

M. Nam

Just one last addition: My point, if it wasn’t that clear from #68, is that constructionism, despite its pretense to some superior technical merit, is just an ideology like anything else. And so is deciding what falls under states’ rights. Using them to justify a position doesn’t automatically make the position legitimate, or ethically preferable. It’s just a matter of who’s in a position to define what’s legal and what’s not.

In that sense, it is indeed a dogwhistle. And often, a red herring. Alright, that’s it with the colorful imagery from me.

In India it’s the conservatives who want the right to abort female fetuses and liberals who cry out against it.

I don’t necessarily think that it falls into such clean divides in India, but even if it did, definitions of “conservative” and “liberal” don’t transport even across America and Canada, and certainly not to India. What people want to socially conserve in America is different from what they want to in India.

this would be correct if you lose the word just.

Ok. Point taken.

the ban on driving drunkingg can be justified by the fact that it protects other individuals. in our classic liberal framework, your rights end where another’s begins.

Well, they have a right to life, and I should have the right to drive drunk, just not to injure somebody. Maybe the fact that I was drunk can be considered a contributor to negligence while sentencing, in case I get involved in an accident. In any case, don’t think it is very productive to argue an analogy, and sorry about introducing one in the first place.

the right to abort a female fetus would not fall under that category, unless of course you belive the fetus has rights, in which case the entire foundation of abortion rights comes crumbling down.

You can make a principled argument based on gender balance in society, which has nothing to do with the fetus, but rather about social balance and the value placed on adult women.

In India it’s the conservatives who want the right to abort female fetuses and liberals who cry out against it.

Just a cultural observation….

Or to put #68 in simpler terms, “states’ rights” and “constitutionality” are just conservative dogwhistles

this would be correct if you lose the word just. surely, abortion rights are not “just” dogwhstles for eugenics or ant-black racism, as anyone familiar with margaret sanger knows.

likewise, states rights is central to federalism, to separation of powers, and to limited govt despite also being a dogwhstle for segregation.

Not really. This is like saying that the right to consume alcohol should allow the right to drive drunk too

the ban on driving drunkingg can be justified by the fact that it protects other individuals. in our classic liberal framework, your rights end where another’s begins. the right to abort a female fetus would not fall under that category, unless of course you belive the fetus has rights, in which case the entire foundation of abortion rights comes crumbling down.