re: Roe opponents, what do you really, really want?

I agree with the concept of subsidiarity, that most governance issues are handled best by the smallest, most local, governmental structure, assuming it can be properly dealt with on that level. So I generally am inclined to allow each state decide on their own about the abortion issue, rather than a 1 size fits all law from the federal level.

However…

Consider this other set of questions. They’re hypothetical and currently unthinkable, but maybe could help shed light on this question.

If Mississippi decided to make incest legal, and lowered the age of consent to 14. Would you be okay with Mississippi having that set of laws, knowing that a Louisiana father could simply drive to Mississippi to legally have sex with his 14 year son?

What if New York passed a law to allow “abortion” up to 2 months POST-BIRTH? New York simply redefined it’s definition of a fully formed human and modified its murder statute accordingly. Would you be accepting of that change, knowing that a parent could drive to New York to murder their infant?

My point is that there is probably a limit to the concept of subsidiarity that we are willing to accept. For me, I am opposed to abortion in all forms, but could only allow for the concept of subsidiarity, allowing for other states to legalize abortion, but not beyond viability, or about 20 weeks of gestation.