NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I'm aware that the arguments for BOTH sides of this decision were just plain sh*t, but there's something I don't understand. If Ms. Roe was arguing that she should be allowed to have an abortion because she was raped, then why didn't the Supreme Court rule only that abortions illegal except in cases of rape? Why did they rule that abortion is legal in all cases?

Or are my facts, and/or strict constructionist nature dead wrong here?

It depends strongly on the facts of the case. The judges rule for one side or the other. They can't make up contingencies like that. If her argument was that women who have been raped and become pregnant should have the option of having abortions, then the judges could have sided with her that way. If her argument was that it was her body, and her choice about whether she should have to carry an unwanted baby or not, then the judges had no choice but to side with her or NOT to side with her. The judges ultimately decided that a woman's rights over her body trumps the rights of her unborn fetus.

That's it.

Okay, I'm aware that the arguments for BOTH sides of this decision were just plain sh*t, but there's something I don't understand. If Ms. Roe was arguing that she should be allowed to have an abortion because she was raped, then why didn't the Supreme Court rule only that abortions illegal except in cases of rape? Why did they rule that abortion is legal in all cases?

Or are my facts, and/or strict constructionist nature dead wrong here?
I think--and I may be completely wrong here--that the Supreme Court viewed the issue as one of privacy. All citizens, not just rape victims, are granted the right to privacy, and the Roe decision stated that laws prohibiting abortion violate this Constitutionally-protected right. The law the blocked "Jane Roe" from getting an abortion was struck down, but so were any other similar laws that violate the right to privacy.

It may have been that the Supreme Court believed it to be between a woman and her doctor to decide when aborting was justified. Thus, they ruled to legalize the act without restrictions as a way to leave the decision-making to the discretion of a physician and his or her patient based on the individual case.

I think--and I may be completely wrong here--that the Supreme Court viewed the issue as one of privacy. All citizens, not just rape victims, are granted the right to privacy, and the Roe decision stated that laws prohibiting abortion violate this Constitutionally-protected right. The law the blocked "Jane Roe" from getting an abortion was struck down, but so were any other similar laws that violate the right to privacy.

I believe you are correct. And no government body is ever going to tell me what I can or can't do with my body.

What I find funny is that Ms Roe (not her real name anyway) is *ahem* Against abortion now.

Anyway, I believe it should only be for rape, incest, and if the life of the mother is at stake. Period.

*exits before flaming starts*

What I find funny is that Ms Roe (not her real name anyway) is *ahem* Against abortion now.

Anyway, I believe it should only be for rape, incest, and if the life of the mother is at stake. Period.

*exits before flaming starts*

Too lazy to google but isn't it Norma Jean Corvey?

As to her current situtation; Being born again has messed up quite a few people. :p

I don't know of too many "contraceptive" abortions. Many are terminal diseases, false pregnancies, debilitating diseases......

I think--and I may be completely wrong here--that the Supreme Court viewed the issue as one of privacy. All citizens, not just rape victims, are granted the right to privacy, and the Roe decision stated that laws prohibiting abortion violate this Constitutionally-protected right. The law the blocked "Jane Roe" from getting an abortion was struck down, but so were any other similar laws that violate the right to privacy.
That's precisely what it's about--privacy--and the decision stemmed from an earlier decision named Griswold v Connecticut, which argued that the state could not bar unmarried people from purchasing birth control, because they didn't have the right to legislate what consenting adults did in the privacy of their homes.

What Roe did was take the next logical step--if the state can't legislate sexual behavior, then they shouldn't be able to decide what a woman is able to do with her body--up to a point. People act as though Roe said women can get abortions up till the day before the child is born. In fact, Roe said the state can't regulate first trimester abortions, but can regulate abortions past that time period as long as they provide for the health or life of the mother.

What I find funny is that Ms Roe (not her real name anyway) is *ahem* Against abortion now.



Yeah, I agree. To minimize confusion, people should not be allowed to change their minds, despite new evidence/experiences.

And anyone who changes his/her mind should be subject to immediate suspicion.

Yeah, I agree. To minimize confusion, people should not be allowed to change their minds, despite new evidence/experiences.

And anyone who changes his/her mind should be subject to immediate suspicion.

Change minds? You mean, flip-flop!

Isn't it funny how the fundies try to use the judiciary branch as a means to circumvent the constitution, instead of as a way of PROPERLY AND OBJECTIVELY INTERPRETING IT?!

So, when a judge is dying, everyone's like, "Oh! Yes! If two more judges die, we can repeal Roe v. Wade! And if four more judges die, we can end freedom of religion!"

Uh, last time I checked the Founders didn't legislate abortion, so until something is hard-coded into the Constitution it's fair game to reverse.

Uh, last time I checked the Founders didn't legislate abortion, so until something is hard-coded into the Constitution it's fair game to reverse.
The judgement of the court was right. To make abortion illegal would be to stop a person from making their own moral and religious determination about when life begins. Because no one truly knows when life begins. Scientists may say a certain trimester (but why not a day, or a few seconds, before that arbitrary point)?

With pro-lifers, they could not answer the question: If you inject an egg with sperm, when does it become alive? When the needle is halfway through the egg? A fourth of the way? An eighth? A sixteenth?

There is no answer as to when life begins. To restrict liberty because of the opinions of an unscientific, religious minority would be wrong.

Yeah, the court ruled it on grounds of privacy, referencing a previous case, Griswold v. Connecticut. Their argument was (as my civics teacher has lead me to believe) structured around the implied right to privacy found in the third and fifth amendments to the Constitution.

Okay, I'm aware that the arguments for BOTH sides of this decision were just plain sh*t, but there's something I don't understand. If Ms. Roe was arguing that she should be allowed to have an abortion because she was raped, then why didn't the Supreme Court rule only that abortions illegal except in cases of rape? Why did they rule that abortion is legal in all cases?

Or are my facts, and/or strict constructionist nature dead wrong here?

cause it dosn't matter who your father was

the supreem court tried to mandate that fetuses arn't people and don't count, they'd never get away with saying that to make up for rape we're gonna kill the kid

Uh, last time I checked the Founders didn't legislate abortion, so until something is hard-coded into the Constitution it's fair game to reverse.

Well, like its been said before, it was based on the right to privacy. Many, including myself (to a point), believe that the right to privacy is protected by the ninth amendment, which protects rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution.

You can say that, but as easily as you can say it is the right to privacy the courts could flip and use another justification. Therefore, until an official constitutional rule is created it can be reversed by the will of the court. That's just the way things are.

[QUOTE=President Shrub]The judgement of the court was right. To make abortion illegal would be to stop a person from making their own moral and religious determination about when life begins.QUOTE]
A quick aside about when life begins and when someone is a human. I've never been to a conception day party myself. Even with our current medical technology a fetus isn't viable until about 26 weeks, and then, it's still a miserable life that's being saved. To say nothing of the human body's propensity to carry out abortions of its own accord.

This judgement was much greater than that. It wasn't nearly so esoteric. If individuals aren't empowered to make their own medical decisions for good or ill, who is? Should the doctors be empowered to force expensive medical procedures on you and garnish your wages for payment? Or should disinterested third parties be able to deny you access to lifesaving or life enhancing procedures based on their own personal ideas of how your is best lived? It wasn't so long ago that Christians though all surgery was an abomination, a great perversion and usurping of God's carefully considered will. Now they just think that about abortion and stem cell research.

But when they get right down to it, they're for the suffering of other people so they don't have to go through the personal inconvience of reconsidering the nuanced complexity of an infinite, just, God who entrusted free will to mere mortals.

Isn't it funny how the fundies try to use the judiciary branch as a means to circumvent the constitution, instead of as a way of PROPERLY AND OBJECTIVELY INTERPRETING IT?!

Funny. It was the liberals that are doing it. If they can't get something past the Congress, it goes to the courts to get it passed. Not to mention, they pick their courts because they know who agrees with them and who does't.

So, when a judge is dying, everyone's like, "Oh! Yes! If two more judges die, we can repeal Roe v. Wade! And if four more judges die, we can end freedom of religion!"

:rolleyes: