Wednesday, December 28, 2011

If I were the President - Abortion

Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation? Is the question that organizations like want politicians to answer. Its interesting that they pick out a question like this that is specifically designed to illicite a yes or no type of response on a topic that is really not yes or no. (they do the same thing with the defense of marriage legislation) This tactic is designed to cause trouble for candidates they don't like.

I should know. I took classes in college where they taught us to write survey questions. When you teach a person how to write questions, in an attempt to get statistical data, you are supposed to teach them to write the question so that it gets unbiased information.

But you are also teaching them how to get biased information.

But back to the topic. And to the question.

The answer is "No."

I don't support pro-life or pro-choice legislation.

What I do support is getting the federal government out of this discussion and focus of lawmaking. This should not be an issue of federal jurisdiction. It should be a states rights issue.

In principle:

We are pushing too many things up to a federal level. Abortion laws are one of them. Lets push this back down to the states where it should be, and let 50 states deal with this independently. People can gather and vote or move away in disgust and so influence the various legislatures.

Forcing my view that abortion is killing a baby on other people is distasteful. I don't want to do that, even if I could. I want people to make good choices so that they will have a good experience when they are standing before their maker to be judged.

1. Rights come from our creator to the people.
2. Then from the people to the states
3. Then from the states to the nation.
4. Men may be created equal, but states are not. What works for one, doesn't always work for the others.


  1. Roy, have you read "A More Perfect Constitution" ? You should if you have not. It's excellent in presenting the opposing sides of each major hot-button issue - so even if you don't agree with his specific proposals for each, you can understand more deeply why the "sides" feel the way they do.

  2. Anonymous,

    Interesting suggestion. And the book looks interesting but as I started reading the 23 proposals he lists from the book I am against all of them except for number 18 where he changes the primary state order.

    I would not do that they way he would but his method looks like it would work too.

    However the other 22 proposals for changes to the constitutions would have very harmful effects on the principle of majority rule and minority protection. Simply granting more volatility into elections and more representatives to more populous states is not going to solve the problem, but it will increase the noise level.

    But thanks for commenting. What do you think about this issue? Or what do you think of my response to it?

    And most importantly, do you have a better idea?