NationStates Jolt Archive

With the possible retirement of one or more justices and the weak status of the Democratic party thanks to mismaniging on their part and repeated attacks and scare tactices used by the Republicans, the Supreme Court will probably be filled with "moral" conservatives. My Am. History teacher once stated with conviction Roe v. Wade can and will never be overturned, but with the rise of the hypocritcal "pro-lifers" it may be quite possible very soon. Will the woman's right to choose to have an abortion be smothered by the so-called Christian rights?

Depends on if someone comes up with a good argument against R v. W, and less on the status of the court. I also believe there are more people than Christians in this world who don't like Abortion.

Having a court full of so called "Evangelicals" won't help if your arguments against it are underprepared.

I don't think it will ever be overturned, no matter who's on the Supreme Court. The government (Republicans and Democrats alike) like their pet eugenics programs...and abortion is a VERY successful eugenics program.

The fact is Row vs. Wade is unconstitutional.

The Tenth Amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states Respectively, or to the people."

Considering that abortion is in no way mentioned in the Constitution, this means that each state should get to pass its own abortion laws, preferably the people of each state voting on the issue. Following this, Mississippi and Texas would probably ban it, but Massachusetts and California would legalize it, so someone could still get it if they really wanted it.

I don't think it will ever be overturned, no matter who's on the Supreme Court. The government (Republicans and Democrats alike) like their pet eugenics programs...and abortion is a VERY successful eugenics program.

Eugenic program? Hardly. I know for a fact that a crack baby aborted eight years ago was going to grow up to unify gravity with the other three fundamental forces. If those memos going around the white house really do call it eugenics, then there's been more bureaucratic bungling in our government then we suspected.

Roe vs. Wade is more like more rights vs. morals and self control. One side wants women to have more rights. The other side wants fetuses to have rights. Roe v. Wade might get overturned, but it will never be resolved until every human being honestly asks himself/herself questions.

The fact is Row vs. Wade is unconstitutional.

The Tenth Amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states Respectively, or to the people."

Considering that abortion is in no way mentioned in the Constitution, this means that each state should get to pass its own abortion laws, preferably the people of each state voting on the issue. Following this, Mississippi and Texas would probably ban it, but Massachusetts and California would legalize it, so someone could still get it if they really wanted it.
It is given to the federal government under the fact that it has been made a choice issue. Women are given the right to choose what to do to/with their bodies. Therefore, constitutional in that regard.

I don't think it will be overturned because people realize it will happen one way or another. Having it legal and disliking it is better than making it illegal and going back to back-alley abortions where the mother is lucky to live. It is naive to think it wont still happen just because it is illegal, and atleast with it legal, it can be safe.

It is given to the federal government under the fact that it has been made a choice issue. Women are given the right to choose what to do to/with their bodies. Therefore, constitutional in that regard.

I pointed out where in the constitution it supports that its unconstitutional now you point out were it says that load of garbage you just unloaded.

I don't think it will be overturned because people realize it will happen one way or another. Having it legal and disliking it is better than making it illegal and going back to back-alley abortions where the mother is lucky to live. It is naive to think it wont still happen just because it is illegal, and atleast with it legal, it can be safe.
People still do hard drugs even though its illegal, too. Not comparing doing cocaine to having an abortion, but, using that line of reasoning one could make a case for just about anything that is illegal to be legalized, so it can be safer.

With the possible retirement of one or more justices and the weak status of the Democratic party thanks to mismaniging on their part and repeated attacks and scare tactices used by the Republicans, the Supreme Court will probably be filled with "moral" conservatives. My Am. History teacher once stated with conviction Roe v. Wade can and will never be overturned, but with the rise of the hypocritcal "pro-lifers" it may be quite possible very soon. Will the woman's right to choose to have an abortion be smothered by the so-called Christian rights?

That's a very unbiased question. What a neutral way of asking. But anyway I doubt it.

It is given to the federal government under the fact that it has been made a choice issue. Women are given the right to choose what to do to/with their bodies. Therefore, constitutional in that regard.

I don't think it will be overturned because people realize it will happen one way or another. Having it legal and disliking it is better than making it illegal and going back to back-alley abortions where the mother is lucky to live. It is naive to think it wont still happen just because it is illegal, and atleast with it legal, it can be safe.

That's a fallicious argument. Same as saying that we might as well legalize murder because at least then the killers' lives won't be ruined. You need to come up with a more convincing argument.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And also notice an important part of the 10th:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states Respectively, or to the people.

You don't have a fact, you have an opinion.

That's a fallicious argument. Same as saying that we might as well legalize murder because at least then the killers' lives won't be ruined. You need to come up with a more convincing argument.

That's a false analogy. The arguement is that with legalized abortion women can have safe, clinical abortion, whereas with illegal abortion some women may go to extreme and dangerous measures to have an abotion.

I just don't see the connection with murder (morality issues aside).

That's a false analogy. The arguement is that with legalized abortion women can have safe, clinical abortion, whereas with illegal abortion some women may go to extreme and dangerous measures to have an abotion.

I just don't see the connection with murder (morality issues aside).

If murder is illegal than killers have to work hard to hide their crimes and risk large jail terms destructive to their lives. If we legalize murder none of these murderers willl have their lives ruined.

But true, I could have probably used a better analogy. I just meant to say that saying because people breaking the law might hurt themselves by breaking the law, doesn't necessarily mean the law is unjust.

Quote:
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Good! You provided evidence. Unfortunately, it is rather vague and one could conclude that abortion is not a protected right since, at the wrighting of the constitution, it was not. The right to freedom from slavery wasn’t even a right until the thirteenth amendment, so it is a bit naïve to assume this applies to abortion.

And also notice an important part of the 10th:

It does say "to the people" doesn’t it? Unfortunately, the people never got to decide. It was decided by the Supreme Court. If there had been a vote, preferably one in each state, I would support a legalization of abortion in whatever states voted yea.

You don't have a fact, you have an opinion.

My opinion has nothing to do with it. I personally think it is unrealistic to ban abortion. It would create more problems than it would solves. I am simply arguing that, from a purely legal approach, Roe vs. Wade is unconstitutional.

Dark Kanatia,

You know, on second thought, you are right that analogy doesn't seem false. In both cases you have an actor who may be hurt by breaking the law and, it turns out, it would be safer for said actor if what they were doing was legal.

I guess I jumped the gun on that one :D

Unfortunately, it is rather vague and one could conclude that abortion is not a protected right since, at the wrighting of the constitution, it was not. The right to freedom from slavery wasn’t even a right until the thirteenth amendment, so it is a bit naïve to assume this applies to abortion.

What? That's the exact opposite of what the amendment suggests! The 9th states that by writting out the rights guaranteed to the people, the existance of other rights is not denied. Translation: just because the Constitution doesn't mention abortion, doesn't mean that the people(well... women specifically) don't have the right to abortion.

Unfortunately, the people never got to decide. It was decided by the Supreme Court. If there had been a vote, preferably one in each state, I would support a legalization of abortion in whatever states voted yea.

I don't know what you are getting at here.

As far as I am concerned this is a pretty simple matter. You are citing the 10th, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court unconstitutionally gave rights to the people (for abortion), I am citing the 9th and 10th showing it is perfectly constitutional for the people to have rights not enumerated in the constitution.

Eugenic program? Hardly. I know for a fact that a crack baby aborted eight years ago was going to grow up to unify gravity with the other three fundamental forces. If those memos going around the white house really do call it eugenics, then there's been more bureaucratic bungling in our government then we suspected.
You don't believe abortion is eugenics? Do some research on the beginnings of Planned Parenthood (the most active proponent of abortion ever). It's founder, Margaret Sanger, was an avowed racist who set Planned Parenthood up as a way to cull the population of "human weeds", as she put it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=planned+parenthood+origin

Abortion IS eugenics.

What? That's the exact opposite of what the amendment suggests! The 9th states that by writting out the rights guaranteed to the people, the existance of other rights is not denied. Translation: just because the Constitution doesn't mention abortion, doesn't mean that the people(well... women specifically) don't have the right to abortion.

We are on the same page. However, neither you, I, nor nine old men can determine what other rights are protected. Only the people, as a whole, can.

As far as I am concerned this is a pretty simple matter. You are citing the 10th, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court unconstitutionally gave rights to the people (for abortion), I am citing the 9th and 10th showing it is perfectly constitutional for the people to have rights not enumerated in the constitution.

Sure, they can have those rights, if the people consent to allowing those rights. Are you afraid that the people may not want abortion to be legal? Because, the populations of most states would legalize it, I assure you. If they brought it to a vote, then no one would have to worry about Roe vs. Wade being repealed and all the hicks who yell and scream about it will be silenced.

I think more likely that being flat out banned (which would take decades and might not work) the white house will just try to have the decision given to the states, almost all of which will ban or limit abortion

It's founder, Margaret Sanger, was an avowed racist who set Planned Parenthood up as a way to cull the population of "human weeds", as she put it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=planned+parenthood+origin

Abortion IS eugenics.

damn straight, whats why when planned parenthood was founded it was called the national eugenics leauge you'd think that would be a give away

Sure, they can have those rights, if the people consent to allowing those rights. Are you afraid that the people may not want abortion to be legal? Because, the populations of most states would legalize it, I assure you. If they brought it to a vote, then no one would have to worry about Roe vs. Wade being repealed and all the hicks who yell and scream about it will be silenced.

That's not really how rights work. The Constitution doesn't mention people consenting to granting rights. It's very clear, you have these rights and others but we can't name them all.

It seems this is a states rights issue for you, it seems you have something against the USSC, fair enough, I'm not concerned with that.

You want to say that the USSC overstepped it's bounds? Fine, but go to Articles 2 and 3. I'm just saying that the USSC deciding that the people have a right that is not enumerated in the Constitution is not unconstitutional with regards to the 10th amendment.

It's very clear, you have these rights and others but we can't name them all.
Which the Supreme Court takes as free reign to make up "rights" as they go along.

"Well, it's one of those pesky unenumerated rights. Why? Because we said so." :rolleyes:

Which the Supreme Court takes as free reign to make up "rights" as they go along.

"Well, it's one of those pesky unenumerated rights. Why? Because we said so." :rolleyes:

Exactly. The third article doesn’t even give the Supreme Court the right to interpret the constitution, anyway, and I defy anyone to show me where it does. In fact if you read the article, you get the impression that the court is inferior to congress.

Which the Supreme Court takes as free reign to make up "rights" as they go along.

"Well, it's one of those pesky unenumerated rights. Why? Because we said so."

No... because it isn't numbered and it isn't specifically prohibited. But anyway, the USSC didn't base Row v. Wade off of the 9th and 10th, I was just citing those to show why Undelia was mistaken.

And anyway, aren't you one of those small government types? I would have thought that you would take any right you can from the government with no complaints.

I'll write a letter to my Congressmen, and ask them to stop shoving unwanted rights down your throat.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...

First sentence of Article 3, section 2.

The Judiciary, read the USSC, has jurisdiction over all cases (specificed later), with regards to the degree they adhere to the Constitution (and other laws mentioned) as that is a question of law.

No... because it isn't numbered and it isn't specifically prohibited. But anyway, the USSC didn't base Row v. Wade off of the 9th and 10th, I was just citing those to show my Undelia was mistaken.
No, RvW was based off the unenumerated "right" to privacy.

Now, I'm not dissing having a right to privacy, I'm just pointing out that it is NOWHERE enumerated in the Constitution. It was made up by the Supreme Court under the guise of it being one of those "unenumerated" rights.

Roe v. Wade can, and will, be overturned. The processes used in abortion, if applied to a grown human being, would be heinous, gruesome murder of the worst kind. Doing it to unborn babies makes it even worse. Just think of what all of the aborted fetuses might have done for humanity. They may have found cures for cancer or AIDS, engineer world peace, or find a better form of fuel that can be more accessable and cheaper than petroleum. But they can't, because they were murdered before they were ever born. The saddest thing about it is, the government supports it.

Quote:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...



First sentence of Article 3, section 2.

The Judiciary, read the USSC, has jurisdiction over all cases (specificed later), with regards to the degree they adhere to the Constitution (and other laws mentioned) as that is a question of law.

I knew you would use this. All this means is that the mentioned cases are to be tried in the Supreme Court , nothing more. I don’t know where you pull this stuff about “to the degree that they adhere to the constitution” (those are your words not the Founding Fathers’) from but I suspect it is a very dark place.

I don’t know where you pull this stuff about “to the degree that they adhere to the constitution” (those are your words not the Founding Fathers’) from but I suspect it is a very dark place.
You forgot "hairy" and "smelly". :p

You forgot "hairy" and "smelly". :p

Hmm, I suppose I did.

The saddest thing about it is, the government supports it.

with my damned tax money

the quakers don't pay taxes for war, why not follow suit?

No, RvW was based off the unenumerated "right" to privacy.

I disagree. It was a right derived from other amendments. They didn't decide "Oh it's not there, we should have it", they decided "Oh it's there given these amendments".

I'm just pointing out that it is NOWHERE enumerated in the Constitution.

Indeed, you can comprehend what I have been saying. Good Work!

It was made up by the Supreme Court under the guise of it being one of those "unenumerated" rights.

So the USSC is making up rights, disguising them as "unenumerated" (if that is a disguise would that mean that they are really enumerated?), and forcing them on you?

Look, by saying that the USSC created a right then you are ignoring the ruling in Row v. Wade and you are ignoring the 9th and 10th. The USSC can't create rights we already have!


I knew you would use this. All this means is that the mentioned cases are to be tried in the Supreme Court , nothing more. I don’t know where you pull this stuff about “to the degree that they adhere to the constitution” (those are your words not the Founding Fathers’) from but I suspect it is a very dark place.

If a case of law is to be tried in the USSC then the USSC must render a decision on that case. If it is a case of law, the USSC's decision must be in regards to the adherence of that law in reference to the controlling laws listed.

If the USSC finds that the law in question is in contridiction to the controlling laws then it can't be a real law.

I don't see how this can go any other way. Are you going to argue against Judicial Review?

with my damned tax money

the quakers don't pay taxes for war, why not follow suit?
Darn straight!

The constitutional question is, for all relevant purposes, secondary to the political ramifications of outlawing abortion.

The republican party garners much of its grass-roots vote by presenting itself as the party on a crusade against abortion.

It is much easier to rile people up to outlaw something which they feel passionately about than to rile them up to prevent its decriminalization.

In the thirty years since the government was barred from outlawing abortion, the american people have declined to amend the constitution to authorize this power.

The implication is that a majority of americans do not feel passionately about outlawing abortion, and consider abortion to be legitimate right.

If abortion was outlawed, the republicans would stand to lose to the democrats, who would find themselves with a strong and passionate base of people intent on overthrowing the prohibition of abortion.

This would mean a government hostile to republican business interests, and therefore a blow to the core of the republican political elite.

I, for one, do not believe that the republicans in power care more about abortion than money.

The constitutional question is, for all relevant purposes, secondary to the political ramifications of outlawing abortion.

The republican party garners much of its grass-roots vote by presenting itself as the party on a crusade against abortion.

It is much easier to rile people up to outlaw something which they feel passionately about than to rile them up to prevent its decriminalization.

In the thirty years since the government was barred from outlawing abortion, the american people have declined to amend the constitution to authorize this power.

The implication is that a majority of americans do not feel passionately about outlawing abortion, and consider abortion to be legitimate right.

If abortion was outlawed, the republicans would stand to lose to the democrats, who would find themselves with a strong and passionate base of people intent on overthrowing the prohibition of abortion.

This would mean a government hostile to republican business interests, and therefore a blow to the core of the republican political elite.

I, for one, do not believe that the republicans in power care more about abortion than money.

I'm a Republican, and I care about abortion than money. And I love money. But you know what? I love people more than money. That's why I think abortion is wrong. It's because people are important.

I'm a Republican, and I care about abortion than money. And I love money. But you know what? I love people more than money. That's why I think abortion is wrong. It's because people are important.


Note that I said "the republicans in power" and did so for a reason ;)

With the possible retirement of one or more justices and the weak status of the Democratic party thanks to mismaniging on their part and repeated attacks and scare tactices used by the Republicans, the Supreme Court will probably be filled with "moral" conservatives. My Am. History teacher once stated with conviction Roe v. Wade can and will never be overturned, but with the rise of the hypocritcal "pro-lifers" it may be quite possible very soon. Will the woman's right to choose to have an abortion be smothered by the so-called Christian rights?

If you examine the text of the original decision, most of those "rights" you're so concerned about, don't exist. Roe v. Wade won't be overturned any time in your lifetime or mine, because it's good law. (ask Cat-Tribe, he can chapter-and-verse it.)
What may happen, is the practice of "Last-Week Infanticide" may be curtailed. Abortion of children at the stage of development wherein they can survive without problems (known as "Viable") on limited-life-support with a fininte term (i.e. they need it at first, but get better) will probably face trouble. Up to the beginning of the second trimester, however, it's easier for a man of the Law to permit termination of a fetus. At eight months and fifteen days, it's morally reprehensible, and probably easy to find fault with.
Certainly you won't see the Supremes overturn state-law restrictions on this kind of thing.

Choices have consequences, it's almost impossible to imagine a woman not knowing by the eighth month she's pregnant (it's happened, but it's debatable and we only have her word for it), in eight months, there are plenty of opportunities to change one's mind. (hell, most women know something is wrong by the second week!)
Abortion or non-Abortion is a choice of two negatives with an unwanted or unexpected pregnancy. There simply are no 'right' decisions. To achieve the level of respect and scholarship necessary to even be considered, most judges have to have enough sense to know this. (yes, there are a few... like in any field.) The Senate still exerts (rightly or not) the power to block an appointment-and there are Republicans who either have a hands-off, or pro-choice, position (mostly northeastern and californian, but IIRC, McCain is a moderate on the issue). it simply means that the free ride is over, NOW has to actually work on something REAL instead of make-work 'issues' like Affirmative Action Protection.

In the end, this might prove revitalizing to the Women's Movement, since they can't count on "The Party In Power"-they have to actually try and entice those that do not necessarily share their leaders' other pet-causes, they have to stop "Yellow-Dogging" and actually examine who they're throwing financial support to, and look at options other than single-party-loyalty to retain their ability to influence (and block) legislation at all levels.

Query to the people that equate abortion with murder:

The average human being appears to have no problem whatsoever with "killing", or the ending of a life. We kill animals for various reasons like meat, fur or because they buzz around us at night, plants for vegetables or because they happen to look bad in our garden, cancer cells that grow in our body and so on and so on.

For some reason one human killing another human however is generally seen as bad; though advocates of killing in case of suffering (euthanasia) or as punishment (death penalty) do exist. I now have two questions for you:

1. Why is killing a human being considered bad ?
2. Why does an embryo/foetus qualify for this special treatment ?

1. Why is killing a human being considered bad ?

Well, in a purely secular way, the obvious intellectual capacity of human is far greater than that of animals, plants or single celled organisms, thus they are capable of understanding their situation far better (note we are talking about humans in general not fetuses). Also, there is no doubt that someone’s death causes emotional trauma to those close to the deceased.

2. Why does an embryo/foetus qualify for this special treatment ?

Because, they have the potential to become human beings and thus are worthy of protection and because it is difficult to determine exactly when an embryo reaches consciousness enough to be considered “human”. After all, we do not slaughter the mentally retarded.

Note: I used purely secular arguments because I am sure that is all you personally respect. I did not state the true reasons that these are wrong. It was simply my meager attempt to explain things to a moral relativist.
Also, I am a vegetarian, so I cause far less death than the average human being.

Well, in a purely secular way, the obvious intellectual capacity of human is far greater than that of animals, plants or single celled organisms, thus they are capable of understanding their situation far better (note we are talking about humans in general not fetuses).

But later you imply it is also wrong to kill the mentally retarted... I do not disagree with that, but it does not logically follow from this reasoning.

Also, there is no doubt that someone’s death causes emotional trauma to those close to the deceased.

Correct. But since an embryo has no personality and has met noone during its existence, there is no loss of fond memories of the deceased. It is however possible that abortion will cause mental trauma in the mother. In that case it depends what you value more: her freedom to choose, or to prevent her from harming herself by restricting her choices (and as such also harming her).

Because, they have the potential to become human beings and thus are worthy of protection

That is not a logical consequence of your reasoning behind question 1.

and because it is difficult to determine exactly when an embryo reaches consciousness enough to be considered “human”.
I would *personally* use the moment it can have experiences. Feel pain, warmth etc - which is when it has formed a neural net. The exact instant of when this happens is not trivial to define, but it is always well after the first trimester in which abortion for non-medical reasons is allowed. Erring on the side of caution in other words.

Note: I used purely secular arguments because I am sure that is all you personally respect.

Not true - I can definately accept and respect religious arguments, as long as they are consistent. I just do not think that religious beliefs are a valid basis for laws in a country without a state religion.

I did not state the true reasons that these are wrong. It was simply my meager attempt to explain things to a moral relativist.
Much appreciated :) And I am not entirely relativist - I just use "maximise pleasure, minimise suffering" as basis for moral reasoning instead of "life is sacred". The concepts often overlap, but they do differ in important areas.

Also, I am a vegetarian, so I cause far less death than the average human being.
Plants are alive too ;) But you most likely indeed do less harm (animals can suffer too ater all) which in my moral system gets a thumps up ;)

I knew you would use this. All this means is that the mentioned cases are to be tried in the Supreme Court , nothing more. I don’t know where you pull this stuff about “to the degree that they adhere to the constitution” (those are your words not the Founding Fathers’) from but I suspect it is a very dark place.

<sigh>

Apparently the Founding Fathers themselves looked in that dark place :rolleyes: :

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

....

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.


--Marbury v. Madison (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html ), 5 US 137, 173-180 (1803).

The fact is Row vs. Wade is unconstitutional.

The Tenth Amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states Respectively, or to the people."

Considering that abortion is in no way mentioned in the Constitution, this means that each state should get to pass its own abortion laws, preferably the people of each state voting on the issue. Following this, Mississippi and Texas would probably ban it, but Massachusetts and California would legalize it, so someone could still get it if they really wanted it.

No, RvW was based off the unenumerated "right" to privacy.

Now, I'm not dissing having a right to privacy, I'm just pointing out that it is NOWHERE enumerated in the Constitution. It was made up by the Supreme Court under the guise of it being one of those "unenumerated" rights.

:headbang:

You might try reading Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html), 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

But anyway, it is interesting that you trumpet the Tenth Amendment, but ignore the Ninth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Tenth Amendment has little practical meaning. More importantly, it does not authorize the states to deny any rights of the people -- such as free speech, privacy, due process, or reproductive rights.

As noted earlier, the 9th Amendment provides:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Ninth Amendment is one of the many reasons that the Supreme Court has held that the list of fundamental rights in the first 8 Amendments is not to be taken as exhaustive.

The relevant portion of the 14th Amendment provides:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment was an amendment to the Constitution -- it amended and changed the Constitution. So whether or not abortion was protected by the Constitution at the time of the Tenth Amendment is irrelevant.

The Due Process Clause is not merely procedural, but places substantive limits on government. This has been the law of the land since at least 1887.
Without incorporation through the Due Process clause as a substantive limit, you have no protection under the Constitution against state infringement of free speech, free press, due process, etc.

Your insistence on "explicit" Constitutional rights is inconsistent with: (a) the original Bill of Rights (i.e., the 9th Amendment), (b) the intentions of the Founding Fathers (e.g., the motives behind the 9th Amendment), (c) the 14th Amendment, (d) the intentions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, and (e) well over 100 years of Supreme Court decisions.

Here is a quote from the Supreme Court - this one written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas -- explaining the substantive protections of unenumerated rights by the Due Process Clause (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

Moreover, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution but that are taken for granted by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity


Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

That is not a logical consequence of your reasoning behind question 1.

Yeah, I know. I had trouble thinking on a relative level (something I don’t normally do), thus the conflictions. I did say it was a meager attempt after all.

Not true - I can definately accept and respect religious arguments, as long as they are consistent. I just do not think that religious beliefs are a valid basis for laws in a country without a state religion.

Cool. Well, I personally believe that no human life should be taken unjustly, as is said in the Bible many times. I consider human embryos to be humans because of the times in the Bible where God talks directly to or about a child in the womb. I don’t think the government should make laws purely based on religion either, unless a large majority of people clearly wanted it, (I'm talking 75% here).

Plants are alive too But you most likely indeed do less harm (animals can suffer too ater all) which in my moral system gets a thumps up

Why thank you. :)

Apparently the Founding Fathers themselves looked in that dark place

See, now I finally dragged the truth out. Its not in the constitution it was created later and many Founders disagreed with the ruling. However, it stands as law. Thus, Abortion may be legal but the constitutionality of it is up for debate. Like I said before though, it would create more problems to ban it so, whatever. I’m tired. Goodnight all. :D

edit: very nice argument cat tribe i shall sleep on it. :D

It is given to the federal government under the fact that it has been made a choice issue. Women are given the right to choose what to do to/with their bodies. Therefore, constitutional in that regard.

I don't think it will be overturned because people realize it will happen one way or another. Having it legal and disliking it is better than making it illegal and going back to back-alley abortions where the mother is lucky to live. It is naive to think it wont still happen just because it is illegal, and atleast with it legal, it can be safe. It comes down to whether women have the right to that freedom if it impinges on the rights of the foetus. That's the basic question. I don't believe that illegal abortions are a good reason to legalise it… the US has loads of murders and murder's still illegal!

I don't know if Roe v Wade will ever be overturned… I live in the UK and I hope our laws will be overturned or made more rigorous than they are. Couldn't say for America.

If you examine the text of the original decision, most of those "rights" you're so concerned about, don't exist. Roe v. Wade won't be overturned any time in your lifetime or mine, because it's good law. (ask Cat-Tribe, he can chapter-and-verse it.)

You are right it is good law. (I'm glad you agree (and thanks)).

What may happen, is the practice of "Last-Week Infanticide" may be curtailed. Abortion of children at the stage of development wherein they can survive without problems (known as "Viable") on limited-life-support with a fininte term (i.e. they need it at first, but get better) will probably face trouble. Up to the beginning of the second trimester, however, it's easier for a man of the Law to permit termination of a fetus. At eight months and fifteen days, it's morally reprehensible, and probably easy to find fault with.
Certainly you won't see the Supremes overturn state-law restrictions on this kind of thing.

Choices have consequences, it's almost impossible to imagine a woman not knowing by the eighth month she's pregnant (it's happened, but it's debatable and we only have her word for it), in eight months, there are plenty of opportunities to change one's mind. (hell, most women know something is wrong by the second week!)

Um. Under Roe and its progeny, states are allowed to ban abortions beyond the point of viability (or about the end of the second trimester) except where abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Accordingly, almost every state has banned late-term abortions except where necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother or (in a few states) other extreme circumstances like severe fetal deformity.

According to the most reliable source, the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm), almost 90% of abortions in the U.S. are performed in the first trimester. In fact, 59% are performed at <8 weeks' gestation with an increasing portion (currently about 25%) performed <6 weeks' gestation. 88% at <13 weeks. A limited number of abortions were obtained at >15 weeks' gestation, including 4.3% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks. Only an estimated 0.08% of abortions are performed > 24 weeks of gestation -- those would be the ones due to medical necessity.

EDIT: BTW, the Supreme Court did strike down a state's attempt to ban so-called "partial-birth" abortions. Stenberg v. Carhart (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-830.html ), 530 US 914 (2000). Most such laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts.

I don't think it will ever be overturned, no matter who's on the Supreme Court. The government (Republicans and Democrats alike) like their pet eugenics programs...and abortion is a VERY successful eugenics program.
Abortion is not a government eugenics program.

Achtung, why are you so worried that R v. W gets overturned? What will happen, if it does, is that abortion will become a full-fledged state issue.

I actually hope it gets knocked down to the states; that way abortion can be banned in some stated and kept legal in others. Better representation of the peoples, if you ask me.

People still do hard drugs even though its illegal, too. Not comparing doing cocaine to having an abortion, but, using that line of reasoning one could make a case for just about anything that is illegal to be legalized, so it can be safer.
Looking at this the other way, cocaine is illeagal, but people still take it, so why would making abortions illeagal prevent them?
It does say "to the people" doesn’t it? Unfortunately, the people never got to decide. It was decided by the Supreme Court. If there had been a vote, preferably one in each state, I would support a legalization of abortion in whatever states voted yea.
Surely the task of government to preserve the rights of the few against the opinions of the majority. Just because a lot of people don't agree with abortions doesn't make it right for the government to make it illeagal.
I'm a Republican, and I care about abortion than money. And I love money. But you know what? I love people more than money. That's why I think abortion is wrong. It's because people are important.
Except you've decided that a collection of cells (remember most abortions happen while an embryo cannot survive outside the womb) is important, but not the mother's wishes. That woman might not have much support from other people, might not be able to afford to bring up a child (remember, republicans try to cut child support) and you want to force this woman to have a child which she may not be able to cope with, forcing two people into a very difficult situation.

I'd rather be poor than dead :(

I actually hope it gets knocked down to the states; that way abortion can be banned in some stated and kept legal in others. Better representation of the peoples, if you ask me.
I actually hope it gets knocked down to the states; that way slavery can be banned in some states and kept legal in others. Better representation of the peoples, if you ask me.

:rolleyes:
Really, how can you not now what you're saying?

People still do hard drugs even though its illegal, too. Not comparing doing cocaine to having an abortion, but, using that line of reasoning one could make a case for just about anything that is illegal to be legalized, so it can be safer.


That's a fallicious argument. Same as saying that we might as well legalize murder because at least then the killers' lives won't be ruined. You need to come up with a more convincing argument.
There is a big difference between drugs (which inherently do physical damage with no or fer health benefits) or murder. Abortion is an accepted medical procedure, and has been for over a century. That is like making it illegal to have your kidney removed



I pointed out where in the constitution it supports that its unconstitutional now you point out were it says that load of garbage you just unloaded.
a)there is no reason to be rude.
b) Are you really going to argue that humans don't have the rights to choice and bodily integrity? If I really need to cite those, I will, but right now, I really just don't care enough to do it.

with my damned tax money

the quakers don't pay taxes for war, why not follow suit?
Does the US government actually pay for abortions? How do Quakers not have to pay taxes for war?

People still do hard drugs even though its illegal, too. Not comparing doing cocaine to having an abortion, but, using that line of reasoning one could make a case for just about anything that is illegal to be legalized, so it can be safer.
Hard drugs should be legalised. Not only for safety, but because gangsters and drug wars have been destroying the inner cities for decades.

Abortion IS eugenics.
I didn't say it wasn't eugenics, I just said that it was not a government eugenics program.

I think more likely that being flat out banned (which would take decades and might not work) the white house will just try to have the decision given to the states, almost all of which will ban or limit abortion
I don't know about that. Before 1973 five states had already legalised abortion. Now in 2005 when people everywhere are more accepting of the procedure, it would probably be legal in many states.

Note: I used purely secular arguments because I am sure that is all you personally respect. I did not state the true reasons that these are wrong. It was simply my meager attempt to explain things to a moral relativist.
Why are all pro-choice people considered to be moral relativists?

Alright, I slept on Cat Tribe’s argument, as promised, and I have come to a conclusion. Roe vs. Wade is entirely constitutional, if interpreted correctly. That doesn’t make it right and in my opinion something which god referred to as a “great nation” while it was still in the womb will never just be a "collection of cells” in my mind, but a human being. However, I can not force my values on others and I may have been trying to do this through the unconstitutional argument. I apologize.

I didn't say it wasn't eugenics, I just said that it was not a government eugenics program.
When abortion is government sanctioned and tax money goes to support Planned Parenthood...to me, that's enough to call it a "government eugenics program", even if it isn't an exact, technical definition of "government program".

Why are all pro-choice people considered to be moral relativists?

You're putting words in my mouth. I based this assumption on Alma Matar’s phrasing. He did not strike me as a particularly religious person. I understand that many pro-choicers are God-fearing, flag-waving citizens. Heck, you could say that I am pro choice, since I think banning it is more dangerous than having it available in a safe legal manner.

I hope it gets overturned. I, personally, thought the Supreme Court was wrong for even hearing the case.

I would preferr it to be a decision made by the states. As one person has states, it is better that way, in my humble opinion.

If someone wants an abortion in a state that does not allow abortions, make a day trip across the border, and get an abortion.

I certainly hope not although it is unfortunately not impossible that the far right Christian fascists with the support of the corporate media could successfully impose even more of their disgusting misogynistic beliefs on the USA. I just hope that the American people eventually rise up against these extremists and that common sense prevails. Although as a Socialist I believe the Democrats are just another corrupt pro business party I still think the campaign for abortion rights could be helped by their victory in 2008.

When abortion is government sanctioned and tax money goes to support Planned Parenthood...to me, that's enough to call it a "government eugenics program", even if it isn't an exact, technical definition of "government program".
By "sanctioned" do you simply mean "legalised"? That certainly doesn't make it a program.

Subsidies to Planned Parenthood. Now that's a different story. Not quite a program, but in the same park. (Kind of how corporate subsidising is related to nationalisation.) Back to abortion: neither the government nor planned parenthood is directing whose children shall be aborted. I can't consider it a program for this reason.

By your logic, the legalisation of tobacco is a "government eugenics program" because it is sanctioned, and the tobacco industry receives subsidies.

You're putting words in my mouth. I based this assumption on Alma Matar’s phrasing. He did not strike me as a particularly religious person. I understand that many pro-choicers are God-fearing, flag-waving citizens. Heck, you could say that I am pro choice, since I think banning it is more dangerous than having it available in a safe legal manner.
You are pro-choice, but you are not a stereotype. I was quite impressed to see your above post. I can count the number of times I've seen someone admit that they were wrong on this forum, on my right hand. :)

I am an atheist and vaguely flag-waving (not much of an issue; Ireland is not going to go to war against anyone) and I think that morals are mostly absolute.

I certainly hope not although it is unfortunately not impossible that the far right Christian fascists with the support of the corporate media could successfully impose even more of their disgusting misogynistic beliefs on the USA. I just hope that the American people eventually rise up against these extremists and that common sense prevails. Although as a Socialist I believe the Democrats are just another corrupt pro business party I still think the campign for abortion rights could be helped by their victory in 2008.

To my non-lawschool mind, a repeal of R v. W would not ban abortion. It would just not guarentee the right to have an abortion. The states would probably have a vote weather to ban abortion or not.

I actually hope it gets knocked down to the states; that way slavery can be banned in some states and kept legal in others. Better representation of the peoples, if you ask me.
Since you're so intent on dragging slavery, and the War of Northern Agression (:D jk - I'm a Yankee myself) into this, do you believe that the War was a result of states' rights or slavery?

Abotion is completely constitutional, does any1 remember article.. 16 or so of the constitution. Going by the 10th admenment, we shouldn't have passed any laws from 1776 that banned anything!

Abotion is completely constitutional, does any1 remember article.. 16 or so of the constitution. Going by the 10th admenment, we shouldn't have passed any laws from 1776 that banned anything!

It never says that abortion is guarenteed, does it?

It states that congress can make laws that are "just and proper." I could be wrong, but it's somewhere in there at the end of something...

It states that congress can make laws that are "just and proper." I could be wrong, but it's somewhere in there at the end of something...

Well, that was certainly helpful. :rolleyes: :p

Abotion is completely constitutional, does any1 remember article.. 16 or so of the constitution. Going by the 10th admenment, we shouldn't have passed any laws from 1776 that banned anything!

The constitution has only seven articles…

If you are talking about the amendment, the sixteenth amendment is the one that created income tax, which never really passed by the way, but that’s a bit off topic. ;)

It never states that it is guarenteed.

Personally, I think the SC had no right to legislate from the bench. It should be a state decision weather to allow abortion or not.

I hope it gets overturned. I, personally, thought the Supreme Court was wrong for even hearing the case.

I would preferr it to be a decision made by the states. As one person has states, it is better that way, in my humble opinion.

If someone wants an abortion in a state that does not allow abortions, make a day trip across the border, and get an abortion.

Because all those Alaskans and Hawaiians live right down the street from another state.

Because all those Alaskans and Hawaiians live right down the street from another state.


Than MOVE.

Than MOVE.

That's completely realistic.

Because all those Alaskans and Hawaiians live right down the street from another state.
For Alaskans, there's always Canada. Too bad for Hawaiians, though...although Hawaii is overtly Democrat, so I don't think it would get outlawed there.

For Alaskans, there's always Canada. Too bad for Hawaiians, though...although Hawaii is overtly Democrat, so I don't think it would get outlawed there.

I wonder how many abortion clinics Yukon has.

That's completely realistic.


To me, it is more fair than having the monority dictate the laws of a state to a majority.

If you do not like the laws of your state, than move. Simple.

To me, it is more fair than having the monority dictate the laws of a state to a majority.

So you think it is entirely fair to have the majority decide what rights everyone, including the minority, gets?

So you think it is entirely fair to have the majority decide what rights everyone, including the minority, gets?


Nothing in politics is entirely fair. But, having a state referendum on abortion is much more fair than having a court thousands of miles away decide something so touchy.

Which the Supreme Court takes as free reign to make up "rights" as they go along.

"Well, it's one of those pesky unenumerated rights. Why? Because we said so." :rolleyes:

God. Damn. It.

I don't know how many freakin times I'm going to type this before it gets pounded into peoples goddamn thick skulls.

Roe vs. Wade was NOT about the right to abortions . That is just plain stupid if you think it is. It is the right to privacy , which is eluded to in the US Constitution. For the love of god, why can't people get this simple little damn point.

*And vent...*

Okay, it's simple.

Abortion is a medical procedure. For abortion to be made illegal, that would mean that the police would have the power to go into your medical files any time they wanted, whenever they wanted, perhaps without even a warrant. It doesn't matter if you had one or not: The police would need to check every damn medical file.

THUS,

RIGHT TO PRIVACY. Nobody can go into your medical records without your consent(Or under extremely extrenuated circumstances).

FOR THE LAST TIME:

Roe vs. Wade was about Privacy, not abortion.

Dammit.

So you think it is entirely fair to have the majority decide what rights everyone, including the minority, gets?
WELCOME TO DEMOCRACY!

:p

Nothing in politics is entirely fair. But, having a state referendum on abortion is much more fair than having a court thousands of miles away decide something so touchy.

How would it be fair to the people who wanted access to abortions in the states that banned abortion? As it stands now, abortions are a selective procedure. No one who is opposed to them is forced to endure one. What's fair about telling hundreds of thousands of people that they cannot have access to abortions because other people find them morally wrong?

WELCOME TO DEMOCRACY!

:p

The Founding Fathers made damn well sure we are not a democracy. If you think we are a democracy, go back to government class. We are not a tyrrany by the majority. NONE of the founding fathers wanted a true democracy.

WELCOME TO DEMOCRACY!

:p

Surely you're not so stupid as to believe that the United States is a democracy?

How would it be fair to the people who wanted access to abortions in the states that banned abortion? As it stands now, abortions are a selective procedure. No one who is opposed to them is forced to endure one. What's fair about telling hundreds of thousands of people that they cannot have access to abortions because other people find them morally wrong?

They would have access to abortion clinics, just in other states.

Surely you're not so stupid as to believe that the United States is a democracy?


Although we are not a pure democracy, a la Athens, our republican system is based in democracy.

Surely you're not so stupid as to believe that the United States is a democracy?
In a word: NO. *haysoos on a pogo stick*

But from the ammount of "democracy" talk coming fromour moron leaders on both sides of the aisle and the ammount of morons in the public that actually BELIEVE we are a "democracy"...that is why I made that statement.

It's like these idiots that think the US should scrap the Electoral College and allow for a flat popular vote to determine elections.

/hijack

In a word: NO. *haysoos on a pogo stick*

But from the ammount of "democracy" talk coming fromour moron leaders on both sides of the aisle and the ammount of morons in the public that actually BELIEVE we are a "democracy"...that is why I made that statement.

It's like these idiots that think the US should scrap the Electoral College and allow for a flat popular vote to determine elections.

/hijack

Exactly. The majority of the American populace is stupid, along with much of the politicians. Nobody knows what the hell they're talking about. The problem is, everybody thinks they know exactly what they're talking about.

There are problems with the Electoral college though. I don't think we should throw it out, but change it. States really should consider doing their electoral college votes proportionally. Should eleviate many problems that occur because of it(Think 2000, With Al Bore and George Dubya). Of course, not many people really understand the electoral college to begin with, so I doubt this change will come about any time soon.

Oh, and did you know that Electors don't have to vote how the state tells them? Thus, it could happen where a democratic state had one of it's electors vote republican even if nobody in the state(Unlikely, I know) vote for a Rep. Electors are not legally bound to vote how the people vote. This happened alot in the earlier days of the US, actually.

Oh, and did you know that Electors don't have to vote how the state tells them? Thus, it could happen where a democratic state had one of it's electors vote republican even if nobody in the state(Unlikely, I know) vote for a Rep. Electors are not legally bound to vote how the people vote. This happened alot in the earlier days of the US, actually.
Yes, and that's the only problem I have with the electoral college.

I don't think we should throw it out, but change it. States really should consider doing their electoral college votes proportionally.

Umm, they already do them proportionally. It goes by the number of representatives (add senators, always two, to the number of House seats, which is proportional), that a state has. That way every state gets at least three.

Umm, they already do them proportionally. It goes by the number of representatives (add senators, always two, to the number of House seats, which is proportional), that a state has. That way every state gets at least three.


I think he means proportionaly as far as the popular votes go.

Umm, they already do them proportionally. It goes by the number of representatives (add senators, always two, to the number of House seats, which is proportional), that a state has. That way every state gets at least three.

I think he means doing away with the all or nothing system for electoral votes.

I think he means doing away with the all or nothing system for electoral votes.

Ahh, thank you. Well if you are going to do that, why not just scrap the whole system? (which, by the way, has worked quite well for the past 200 years, thank you very much)

For Alaskans, there's always Canada. Too bad for Hawaiians, though...although Hawaii is overtly Democrat, so I don't think it would get outlawed there.
Hawaii was one of the five states that legalised abortion before Roe vs. Wade. :)

Alright, I slept on Cat Tribe’s argument, as promised, and I have come to a conclusion. Roe vs. Wade is entirely constitutional, if interpreted correctly. That doesn’t make it right and in my opinion something which god referred to as a “great nation” while it was still in the womb will never just be a "collection of cells” in my mind, but a human being. However, I can not force my values on others and I may have been trying to do this through the unconstitutional argument. I apologize.

Wow.

No need to apologize. You were right to stand up for what you believed.

But I want to salute you. It is very rare for anyone on these forums to admit an error -- let alone say they have been persuaded to change their position.

I am glad you found my argument persuasive. But my kudos are not based on the fact that it was my argument, but rather your willingness to be persuaded by rational argument and your willingness to say so.

Thank you, my friend. :)

It never says that abortion is guarenteed, does it?

Asked and answered.

The Constitution protects unenumerated rights -- particularly fundamental liberties. I explained this at length here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9053121&postcount=42).

The right to privacy -- from which the right to abortion stems -- should be the least objectionable of the fundamental liberties protected by the 14th Amendment. As explained by the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/381/479.html ), 381 US 479 (1965), the right to privacy is closely related to express protections of the First, Third, and Fourth Amendments and central to historic notions of a basic sphere of individual autonomy and privacy. It was less expressly recognized and protected in Supreme Court cases dating back at least 120 years.

To me, it is more fair than having the monority dictate the laws of a state to a majority.

If you do not like the laws of your state, than move. Simple.

Nothing in politics is entirely fair. But, having a state referendum on abortion is much more fair than having a court thousands of miles away decide something so touchy.

WELCOME TO DEMOCRACY!

Although we are not a pure democracy, a la Athens, our republican system is based in democracy.

Pray tell, why do we have a Constitution?

What purpose is served by the Bill of Rights? By the 14th Amendment?

Our constitutional Republic is designed so that some matters are put beyond the reach of the majority. Expressly to protect the minority and fundamental liberties.

Those that say Roe should be overturned "so the question of abortion may be left to the states:"

1. Ignore our Constitutional system. Rights are not left to majority vote.

2. Ignore that we are no longer talking about just Roe, but dozens of further decisions including Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

3. Ignore that the rationale for overturning Roe and its progeny requires overturning a host of other liberties.

4. Ignore that overturning Roe and its progeny does not mean the issue would necessarily be left to the states: abortion could easily be either legalized or banned federally. In fact, the attempts at a federal partial birth abortion ban set a clear precedent.

5. Rather oddly equate Congress and legislatures with a popular vote. Most laws aren't voted on "by the people." :rolleyes:

6. Are naive in thinking overturning Roe and its progeny would somehow allow the issue to be "settled." In every state that did not ban or only partially banned abortion, pro-life lobbyists would introduce new legislation and/or referendums every year. Pro-choice lobbyists would do the same in every state that did ban abortion. The venue of the battle would merely change -- and likely intensify, not abate.

I have never been dismayed at a post of yours, Cat Tribe. You are in my opinion the most clear, reasonable, honest and vigorously rational voice on this forum, and I salute you yet again!

I have never been dismayed at a post of yours, Cat Tribe. You are in my opinion the most clear, reasonable, honest and vigorously rational voice on this forum, and I salute you yet again!

Wow. Some would say the opposite about just about every part of that expect perhaps vigorous :D , but thanks. :)

Thank you, thank you very much. ;)

Wow. Some would say the opposite about just about every part of that expect perhaps vigorous :D , but thanks. :)

Thank you, thank you very much. ;)



I am sincere, you are in fact one of the great influences that turned me towards law as a profession. Hats off to you!

I am sincere, you are in fact one of the great influences that turned me towards law as a profession. Hats off to you!

:eek:

Since you're so intent on dragging slavery, and the War of Northern Agression (:D jk - I'm a Yankee myself) into this, do you believe that the War was a result of states' rights or slavery?
South Carolina's paranoia was what ultimately started the war.

Because Roe v. Wade violates the 10th Amendment, I sure as hell hope it gets overturned.

They better not overturn it! :sniper:

Because Roe v. Wade violates the 10th Amendment, I sure as hell hope it gets overturned.

No, it sure as hell doesn't. Don't cherry pick evidence. This issue has been pointed out a few pages back.

Ahh, thank you. Well if you are going to do that, why not just scrap the whole system? (which, by the way, has worked quite well for the past 200 years, thank you very much)

Well, with the Electoral College, there will be a clear and concise winner.

However, siting the 2000 election for an example, in which the popular vote was off by a meager few hundred thousand votes. Such a small margin is debatable, and it would be difficult to get a quick election result.

SO, with the college, whomever hits the 270 mark wins. Simple, undebatable results. If neither hits the 270, then it would be brought to the House faster than by popular vote, especially if it is obvious neither would get 270(Say, for example, a large third party were to come about such as the Reform Party). With the popular vote, a small margin is debatable. With the Electoral College, small margins are not; if you hit the 270(or was it 273?) you win, clear and simple.

The Electoral College would still have it's purposes.

The Electoral College would still have it's purposes.

The only problem is that you get rid of its original, and very noble, goal of protecting the rural populations from rule by the urban populations.

The only problem is that you get rid of its original, and very noble, goal of protecting the rural populations from rule by the urban populations.

Somewhat true, and somewhat not.

It is entirely possible to win the Presidency with only 10 states(although unlikely, I know). This isn't exactly what I would call representation of rural population. Also, say that 51% of a State votes Dem, and 49% votes Rep. The Dems get all of the votes, meaning that all of the Rep votes are basically worthless. If you live in a largely Dem. State, and you are Republican(Or vise versa), you might as well not even vote for President. It's not going to matter.

With proportional voting, you would alleviate some problems.

There are, however, cases for and against it.

It is entirely possible to win the Presidency with only 10 states(although unlikely, I know). This isn't exactly what I would call representation of rural population. Also, say that 51% of a State votes Dem, and 49% votes Rep. The Dems get all of the votes, meaning that all of the Rep votes are basically worthless. If you live in a largely Dem. State, and you are Republican(Or vise versa), you might as well not even vote for President. It's not going to matter

I see where you are coming from, but it would be somewhat dangerous to immediately adopt an untested system. Perhaps I would support this more if there were some sort of private research into it. (If anybody knows of any I would be grateful) I say private because I doubt that the government would look into it, and, if they did, I would be severely wary of the results they put forth.

The sooner it gets overturned the better.