Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "" video.

The actual abortion case is Casey v PP which will play an important role in this case.
6
What will happen, at most, is that abortions will be left up to the states which is what abortion should be, a state rights issue.
1
@angie99656 there are many medical procedures that are illegal.
1
@beetlebob4675 the doctor's oath is not legally bound. And many medial procedures are illegal.
1
@Rae Tavia state rights is very valuable as it keeps our nation going. Consider this. Say abortion can be made illegal. Without state rights it can be done federally now
1
@LittleAl016 why? There are arguments for and against abortion. In fact, it is probably the most complex issue out there and should be completely left up to the states. And idea of state rights is that complex issues become solved easier as there are subjective and objective sides in all of them.
1
@salomaoserra6432 how do you "save people's lives"? That is up for debate. Do you force others to give up a kidney to give to someone who needs one? That would save lives.
1
@LittleAl016 to start, stop with this right to do with one's body. After covid your side is done with that argument. I am being berated because I choose not to wear a mask and not take the vaccine. Next, one an argue that abortion is murder. That is a living thing in the body and people are not concerned about the woman's body but what is inside of them. How they will procreate and then just murder. There are arguments there. The major hurdle on abortion is that it is highly emotional and just highly subjective. On the objective side it is killing a living thing, period and how far do you want to go down that route in solving problems?. However, forcing a woman to have a baby they do not want can lead to issues in society. There are also mental issues that evolve on both sides. So you know, I am not pro life nor pro choice on this matter. I am a moderate and see both sides. If I were to lean to one side I would say I am pro choice, but again, this issue is highly complex and should be left up to the states.
1
@salomaoserra6432 there are plenty of arguments against abortion. For one, it is murder. You are killing a living thing. That does go down a dangerous path. And abortions affect more than just the woman.
1
@salomaoserra6432 it is alive. Look up the court case Casey v PP, if it can be kept alive outside of the woman it is determined to be alive. Also, by biological definition it is alive. Also, abortion plays a role on the society and culture. Along with that, there are many things you yourself cannot do to your body that local communities determined. Thus, this should be a local issue.
1
@Rae Tavia Easy 1. Education 2. Healthcare 3. Infrastructure 4. Domestic laws 5. Government funding 6. Local elections 7. Business regulations 8. Traffic laws 9. Zoning laws 10. Tax laws
1
@Rae Tavia it is easier to correct at the local and state level. Almost every issue has an objective and subjective side, or an emotional and factual side. There are arguments for both and it depends on culture. What may work in CA will not work in FL for numerous reasons. The founding fathers ran into that issue with only 13 states which is why they created state rights. At the federal level it is much more difficult to make changes. State rights get rid of the middle man.
1
@salomaoserra6432 you can with certain technology which is why Casey v PP court ruling was so important. Abortion no different than a tatoo? Really? One is killing a living thing, the other isn't. Even at that there are still laws restricting tattoos. For example, in my home state you cannot get one if you are drunk. So thanks for giving me an example of a law that prevents someone from doing something to their body.
1
@salomaoserra6432 assistant suicide is illegal in many states, but that only affects the person involved. Why is that?
1
@salomaoserra6432 it is alive, learn biology. Also, again, read Casey v PP ruling. "Oh, wow, you cant get something that has consequences to yourself while intoxicated"" Why should that matter? It is your body. Also, again, assistant suicide is illegal in many states. You ignored that I see.
1
@Rae Tavia no, state and local governments remove the middleman. The more local a government is the more you can see if government is working for you. At the local level you can attend town hall meetings, meetings with the school district, see if your tax dollars are being spent how you want, etc. At the federal level you can't. At the local level you have a far greater chance of meeting your representatives and you can actually vote for them. How many members of congress can you vote for? The federal government is there for two things, deal with foreign affairs and handle commerce between states. Everything else is left up to the states and all governments are confined to the constitution. Go live in different states like I have and you will see the desire to have more local government. I have met people in the west coast that did not know that there was a Kansas City, MO. With someone that ignorant why should they have an influence on what goes on in the state of MO?
1
@Rae Tavia actually what you described would be an example of a centralized government. In order for a state to do something they will have to go through the federal government as opposed to just doing it themselves. So again, state rights removes the middle man. If a state is having an issue and there is no state rights in order to solve it they will have to go through the federal government and convince representatives of other states to agree which is a mess. If you look at what the federal government gets involved in it falls in line with what I mentioned, foreign affairs and commerce between states. There are a few exceptions which are debatable but for the most part it is true. The fact is you do not understand history so you won't support state rights. You want an overpowering centralized government so you can force others to do what you want. You see, for me, if you support abortion laws you can move to a state that has them. Your idea will have those that support abortion restrictions have it placed on everyone as opposed to allowing states to decide.
1
@Rae Tavia the federal government is not there to serve the people, it is there to serve the states via dealing with foreign affairs and commerce between states. That is why nothing at the federal level has ever been determined by the people but by the states via stat representatives. I support equal rights as the Constitution limits all governments and protects the rights of the people. One centralized government is unequal by definition as what works in one state will not work in another. We see that problem still to this day. "You just want states to have their own selective rights in which case screw you pal." No, never said that. Now you are showing lack of intellectual thought here. I said all governments are limited via the Constitution. Please, learn to read. You will be much more knowledgeable. At this point I can see why you want big government, you cannot think for yourself.
1
@Rae Tavia after the passage of the Community Mental Health Act the federal government took over a large portion of the mental healthcare in this nation where the states had less influence. The result? Our mental healthcare in this nation became worse. There is a great example right there of the federal government doing more damage when they try to take control.
1
@Rae Tavia the federal government took over mental healthcare in this nation which is a left wing idea and as a result mental healthcare became worse in this nation. I am literally giving you an example of where the federal government failed compared to the states.
1
@Rae Tavia so when the federal government overtakes mental healthcare in this nation from the states in the 60s and it becomes a mess that is a sign of medicare for all, where Medicare is losing money, will work? " other countries spend less per capita and have higher quality healthcare" That is not true, also, many of those nations are smaller than many of our states. So you are actually showing an example of state rights.
1
@Rae Tavia on TX, that is completely false. Besides, if true, that sounds like a great example of having state rights. If TX wants to do that then fine, other states won't. Now imagine if the entire US wanted to push that propaganda. One idea of state rights is to prevent propaganda like that in our education system. Public education can arguably be indoctrination. If TX wants to push that idea other states won't and people in TX will learn that what they are taught is a lie via what people in other states learn. But if it exists in the entire US how will people know what is true or not? There is only one source of information. Thanks for giving me more examples of the benefits of state rights. The more information out there the better. Having only one source of information out there in public education, the federal government in your case, would be dangerous.
1
@beetlebob4675 I never said education was indoctrination with no exception, I support public education. But there is a dangerous path that it can become indoctrination. But whatever, your lack of education shows you just make assumptions
1