I am pro-choice. Nonetheless I believe Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. It should have been left to the states.
I suppose that depends largely on how one views America. I would point out that if we are a mere confederation of independent sovereign states, then the BoR is reduced to being virtually pointless. I do not believe that it is so, and must therefore reject the notion that the states are completely independent. The BoR must apply to all states or else, again, what is the point of having it? Some say it is meant to apply only to the fedgov, but IMO that argument falls flatly dead in its face. How could it be that the fedgov would be mandated to respect the rights of men, whereas the states could do as they please? That makes as much sense as two monkeys humping a football.
Therefore, the states (and I question the very existence of any "state", to wit:
Freedom Is Obvious: The "State") are not in fact free to do as they please, as some of the more ardent proponents of the 10A would have us accept. In fact, I reject "states' rights" completely because the only rights that exist are those of the individuals. Are "states" authorized to murder their people? Are they authorized to make any Law whatsoever? If "no" to murder and "yes" to Law, where then is the line drawn between "yes" and "no"?
When one places notions such as "state" under the withering light of competent examination, the absurdities that they are become apparent to intelligent, rational, and honest men.
Therefore, your very premise is flawed. How can something be decided by an entity that possesses no independent existence of its own? The only place "state" exists is within the confines of the skulls of individual human beings. If I wave my magic wand and immediately thereafter you and I were the only two people on the planet, I would have to ask "show me the 'state'", to which you would then be either left standing and wondering where it went, or the light would come on as you twigged to the fact that there is no "state" and never has been, save for in the minds of men. "State" is pure vapor and shade. It is nothing at all, and yet our belief drives us to act as if the truth were otherwise. If this does not demonstrate the power of
mind, then I suppose nothing could.
The verdict has poisoned our national politics for decades and made SCOTUS nominations political death matches instead of the sober exercises of judgment they should be.
I cannot disagree with you here. I strongly concur.
I understand that in principle a right is a right and should not vary from state to state, but I think the price of that principle has been too high in this case.
You either believe in rights, or you do not. Price has nothing to do with anything, save one's distaste for the cost of freedom. Freedom is not what most people think. It is, in fact, a real bitch.
On the one hand we have the exhilaration of pure freedom. On the other hand we find the requirements of freedom - the "costs", if you will. Among them are intelligence, integrity, honor, respect, self-control, learnedness, accountability, respect for others, respect for self, and the willingness to pay the price to be free, as well as to assume
ALL its responsibilities. This is why so few people are interested in it, preferring
pretty slavery over it, so long as they are permitted to lie to themselves and each other in saying that they are, in fact, free.
Abortion should be allowed or prohibited on a state by state basis. Our national politics would be far healthier.
I am not certain this is the case. Methinks we are best served by minding our own businesses. What a person does not make public should remain private and immune to prying eyes. Anything other than this opens the door to tyranny, especially that of good intentions, which is the worst form of them all.