Originally Posted by
ipbanned
No worries about the late reply.
But I don't agree; yes, I agree government shouldn't have the authority to dictate the definition of life; but that isn't what they are doing. Not anymore than outlawing murder dictates the definition of life. I'm not comparing abortion to murder; but for "pro-life" people, it is, and on what basis do we say they are factually wrong? Neither supreme court decision really takes into account scientific arguments here; the question isn't even asked, it is assumed that abortion is murder, or, if you take the "opposite" position, that it cannot be murder because the control people have over their bodies is the issue.
I agree that state governments are also governments, so I have nothing to argue against there. I think Cpig's argument (though he can correct me if I'm wrong) is more about how Roe v Wade is a bad law, because, it doesn't respect the way the structure of the US governement was intended to work - I believe this is the main reason the supreme court also made this decision. Though of course, many other laws that aeren't "hot button" issues (such as the Reagan administration's pressuring states to raise the drinking age to 21 back in the 1980s) don't seem to be question except by the more radical of libertarians, and yet, this law is. I do think overturning it and letting the states decide is how the American political system is conceived to work Not saying I agree or disagree with this system, but I like the idea of either scrapping a politcal system altogether, or sticking with it - but not the idea that you can take what you like and ignore what you don't without amending it first.
Your argument about vaccine mandates also strikes me as wrong because, while, covid vaccines were never mandatory in the US, I believe many vaccines are, and noone complains (well, almost noone) because it is a question of public health. I suppose there could be a correlation where one type of policy influences another, but I also don't think vaccine mandates are dicatorial when it comes to illnesses like polio (covid is a different story, especially since the vaccines were so new, but also because it wasn't as much of a public health threat as it was hyped up to be).
I also think pro-choice vs pro-life is comical as a public "debate" because it seems both sides completely ignore the other in favor of what they consider (more) "important" without realizing, it seems, the other side is doing the same thing, not because they have ill intents, but because they don't take into account the other side's argument. One side says abortion is murder. The other side says a woman has sovereignty over her body. These points are actually not in contradiction, it's the question of whether a fetus is a person or simply part of the woman's body and nothing more, that should be addressed.
I personally tend to be pro-choice because the consequences of outlawing abortion tend to make it worse for women, and don't stop them from getting abortions anyways. I also don't like how this is framed as "murder" as if the action of abortion was done in malice; it is a difficult decision for the women who make it. I'm more in favor of setting a limit to how late a woman get an abortion. I feel like for conservatives it's a question of what "makes a person a person" though, and I won't get into that here, though I find that valid to ask at least.