Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
Using words like "murder" and "violence" here imply something you know you don't mean. We're talking about a medical procedure, administered privately, by a licensed professional, after careful consideration and a weighing of all options. The way you're talking, landscapers shouldn't be pulling weeds out of the ground. The way you seem to be defining it, that's murder too.
Clearly the context is initiation of violence against people.

What do you mean, 'what happens'? It's in the constitution. First of all, that big powerful body is actually made up of representatives from the individual smaller bodies. So there are safeguards that keep the big body's agenda from deviating too much from any one of those smaller bodies. However, when it does, it does. And the constitution clearly spells out what the powers of the federal government are, and where they stop. All three branches of government have the ability to challenge the interpretations of the other. And if all three agree that the fed has precedence over the states on any single issue, then the states lose. Boo hoo.

In regards to this issue, the current situation is so very much the opposite of what you're hypothesizing, that your hypothesis seems totally irrelevant, and disconnected from reality. One side of the argument says "the fed should make sure abortions stay legal nationwide". The other side says "it's none of the fed's business". That's the debate. There's only a tiny minority who support a nationwide ban.
I'm talking core philosophy here.