My Church wrote the amicus brief that overturned Roe v Wade.
The result of which was leaving it to the states.
It's all good and dandy to want to take it further, but by overturning Roe vs Wade, the argument has been strengthened against a nationwide ban as well.
It is a double edged sword, but fortunately in reality even if we don't have a nationwide ban, we now have the opportunity to convince enough people to bypass cheating and fraud on an individual state level, thereby eventually achieving the same thing.
Murder is federally illegal. 18 U.S.C. § 1111 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice.
It's not strictly a state's issue. If our federal government would recognize the fact that an unborn child is fully human from the moment of conception We could wrap this right up.
Even if we defined life at a federal level most states still have statutes on the books that would instantly make abortion illegal in those states.
Should slavery be a state issue? Same category. Dehumanizing a group of people in order to enact someone else's will upon them.
This was my response to another post saying the same thing:
That's the rub, isn't it? The world has disagreed many times on what constitutes murder and the criteria that needs to be met.
Fortunately, we have an opportunity that we did not have before because we were held hostage by a federal ruling that wasn't even based in honesty.
It doesn't strictly matter that murder is illegal if the criteria of what murder is or isn't, who is guilty or isn't guilty, who constitutes a person or doesn't, is fluid.
The states rights is a stepping stone, but it's an important one. We won't win a fight by aiming for the grand prize when there are a ton of other steps we have to take first.
But by taking a step down the states' rights path, we stepped away from a path that led directly to a national ban.
The next path leads to a philosophical battle to get people to understand that an unborn baby is still human, which causes people to vote in favor of banning abortion in their states, which also leads to recognition of that fact.
The result of which was leaving it to the states.
It's all good and dandy to want to take it further, but by overturning Roe vs Wade, the argument has been strengthened against a nationwide ban as well.
It is a double edged sword, but fortunately in reality even if we don't have a nationwide ban, we now have the opportunity to convince enough people to bypass cheating and fraud on an individual state level, thereby eventually achieving the same thing.
Murder is federally illegal. 18 U.S.C. § 1111 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice. It's not strictly a state's issue. If our federal government would recognize the fact that an unborn child is fully human from the moment of conception We could wrap this right up.
Even if we defined life at a federal level most states still have statutes on the books that would instantly make abortion illegal in those states.
Should slavery be a state issue? Same category. Dehumanizing a group of people in order to enact someone else's will upon them.
This was my response to another post saying the same thing:
It doesn't strictly matter that murder is illegal if the criteria of what murder is or isn't, who is guilty or isn't guilty, who constitutes a person or doesn't, is fluid.
The states rights is a stepping stone, but it's an important one. We won't win a fight by aiming for the grand prize when there are a ton of other steps we have to take first.
But by taking a step down the states' rights path, we stepped away from a path that led directly to a national ban.
The next path leads to a philosophical battle to get people to understand that an unborn baby is still human, which causes people to vote in favor of banning abortion in their states, which also leads to recognition of that fact.