Constitutional Amendment (The Right To Life Amendment)

[Ebowed]

I urged the Senate to fight against this amendement as it is the will of Ebowed and PBrunsel alone, not the will of Atlasian citizens.

Just because you're not opposed to abortion doesn't mean that the entire country agrees with you!  It's quite possible that a majority of the country agrees, but to act as if we are just imposing our will on everyone is absurd.  Now, let's pretend that you actually have a logical approach to the abortion issue.  What if it were the will of everyone except afleitch to have abortions illegal?  Would that suddenly make it fine and dandy for the Senate to ban abortions?  That's what it looks like, if I'm reading your post right.

That said, Brandon H brought up a good point about this amendment looking more like a statute than a constitutional amendment.  I may craft some revisions.  I oppose DanielX's amendment, for the record.

Secondly, this amendment violates the principles underlying our Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to provide for the framework and limitations of government. It is not meant to be a legal code regulating private behavior. It is unprecedented for a constitutional amendment to establish specific punishments: normally, penalties are established by statute.

As stated above, I hope to fix this via amendment.

[Ebowed]

I urged the Senate to fight against this amendement as it is the will of Ebowed and PBrunsel alone, not the will of Atlasian citizens.

It is my will to see this amendment passed. There are certainly some qualms I have about this amendment (I am now in favor of the death penalty), but in any situation it is always best to err on the side of life rather than death.

As for the federalism objection, I certainly agree that federalism should be preserved to the farthest extent possible. However, I refuse to believe that federalism is so sacred as to trump life.

I wouldn't really worry too much about what afleitch said - clearly he thinks that opinions are only with merit if the majority holds them.

[Ebowed]

Your statement that this amendment is only "the will of Ebowed and PBrunsel" and "not the will of the Atlasian people" implies that you would not have a problem with this amendment if the majority of Atlasians supported illegalizing abortion.

That said, I'm not opposed in breaking the amendment up into three parts, especially as it may give each of the causes more likelihood of passing.

[Ebowed]

Firstly, this amendment is contrary to the principles of federalism. There is a reason for which we have both federal and regional governments, rather than a unitary national government. Regions are not mere subsidiaries of the federal government: the Constitution should not dictate regional policy. There is simply no need to federalize these issues.

Yes, there is.  The Constitution is there to protect the basic rights of the people and dictate how the federal government will function, is it not?  If this document is intended to protect basic rights, then certainly one of these basic rights is the right to life.  Our view is that abortion violates this right; as such, a constitutional amendment is entirely appropriate.

[Ebowed]

It is a pointless piece of legislation. You can actively oppose any of these things without banning them. Such an amendment would only serve to silence the pro-choice voice.

You can also actively oppose murder, rape, theft, etc., without banning them, but generally these things are illegal because we have basic laws and standards.

[Ebowed]

We've established that; I'm just failing to see the logic behind any of the points you've made:
1.) That this legislation is only the will of myself and PBrunsel, which is irrelevant and untrue;
2.) That we should personally oppose abortion without imposing this view on others, which would be possible if we did not view abortion the way we did, and wish to stand up for the civil liberties of unborn human beings.

[Ebowed]

Yea