I like states rights too... but some things are considered so fundamental to be federal / American issues. Having control over your body seems like it fits the bill of an American issue.
control over your body, the right to privacy, was something secured by the roe v. wade decision. this was a case of judicial activism, trying to reinterpret the constitution to say something it does not say. this is why judge borq was refused, b/c as a strict constitutionalist he read the constitution for what it actually reads, not for what he wanted it to read.
do i believe in the right to privacy? yes, and so did judge borq. its worth adding to the constitution, a new amendment...
back to the issue of control over the body as it relates to abortion... it depends on your definition of life, again doesn't it? if a woman has the right to her body, and can terminate a pregnancy afer 8 months, should she have that right? most reasonable americans say no. should a woman have the right to have an abortion after 1-2 months, most reasonable americans say "perhaps." its just such a difficult dilemma, b/c of all the advancements we've made in the realm of science and medicine over the last 30+ years since roe v. wade.
we know somuch more now about how and when unborn children develop in the womb. when there is a heart-beat, when their is brain function, when they are sensitive to pain. regardless of the religion issue (some teach that all unborn are life or potental life and thus are sacred), the science issue should play a role in determining a new code of ethics for americans concerning abortion. this is why it should not even be a court issue. it should be a legislative issue, probably at the state level.
that being said, as a society, and i know bush gets ridiculed for saying this, we should be trying to foster in our culture a culture of life, that in our country we should strive to have as few abortions as possible. that's the idea, and i, like bush, am an idealist.
