Gallup: "Pro-Choice" Americans at Record-Low 41%, Means MORE Pro-LIFE (politicians, election)

[Wyndsong71]

Originally Posted by Savoir Faire

Agreed, but being pro-life and the death penalty are not separate issues, they are contradictions.

You cannot support death and be pro-life, that's insane. The words themselves are contradictions.

No they are not contraditions. The death penalty is punishing someone who has done something wrong, abortion is getting rid of/killing an innocent. HUGE differences.. I can see that and I'm pro-choice! sheesh!

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

The courts were horribly wrong and that murderous decision must be overturned to stop the slaughter of innocents.

The were wrong in your opinion. In any case, the court has the authority not you. As to whether it was wrong or right is not going to be solved here.

From a legal perspective, fetuses don't have citizenship. It's impossible to come to a consensus when one side believes that they have a right and the other side believes that exercising that right is equivalent to murder.

[Wyndsong71]

Originally Posted by A&M_Indie_08

Like I care if you are my friend..... I have my beliefs, and if you were not raped or have health problems and want to abort the baby.......yes, you are a loser

I would adopt a baby if I had the living space by the way..... my small apartment is not large enough for that right now

Really, I think the restrictions that are made on adoptions are the real problem. It is so horrible trying to "qualify" to adopt that it's crazy! And horribly expensive too!

[seattlenextyear]

Originally Posted by janelle144

You have had that many fertilized eggs---that many pregnancies, that many miscarriages?

Most miscarriages happen before the woman knows she's pregnant: within the first 3 weeks. Since the rate of spontaneous abortion is up to 50% pre-implanation and 10% after, I assume I've had a bunch of lil embyros in my uterus without knowing. And no, I've never had a known miscarriage.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

The thing about rights is that it is not up to popular vote. That's what "inalienable" means. Courts have declared that it is a women's right to have an abortion before a certain fetus age. Whether everyone but here disagrees doesn't diminish her right in the slightest.

Abortion is not a right. It is currently legal in the United States - that does not make it a right. The word "right" is thrown about way to much and has been made practically meaningless by the political left. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution nor is there a "right to privacy" found in there - the justices pulled that "right" out of their collective gluteus maximuses.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

In any case, the court has the authority not you.

Wow. This is really scary if you actually believe this. The Supreme Court has more authority than the citizens of our Republic? Did you fail civics class in high school? If enough people strayed to your way of thinking and forget that any power government has is bestowed upon them by the people and that the power can be taken away if the government gets out of hand - then our Republic is doomed. The Supreme Court justices are appointed and confirmed by elected officials. The justices serve as long as they uphold good behavior. When they exhibit bad behavior they may be removed from their position by the people. The judiciary is accountable to the ultimate authority in the land - the Constitution - just like any other public servant is. SCOTUS in 1973 ignored the constitution and legislated from the bench - it is to bad that the people didn't have the gumption to throw those bozos out on their heads.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Wow. This is really scary if you actually believe this. The Supreme Court has more authority than the citizens of our Republic? Did you fail civics class in high school? If enough people strayed to your way of thinking and forget that any power government has is bestowed upon them by the people and that the power can be taken away if the government gets out of hand - then our Republic is doomed. The Supreme Court justices are appointed and confirmed by elected officials. The justices serve as long as they uphold good behavior. When they exhibit bad behavior they may be removed from their position by the people. The judiciary is accountable to the ultimate authority in the land - the Constitution - just like any other public servant is. SCOTUS in 1973 ignored the constitution and legislated from the bench - it is to bad that the people didn't have the gumption to throw those bozos out on their heads.

I think it is you who don't seem to understand that as a citizen you don't get to determine constitutionality of laws. That's the court's job and you shouldn't be so amazed.

Moreover, if you think Justices of the Supreme Court get removed for "bad" decisions, how many justices were removed after Dred Scott? How many ever?

Originally Posted by Harrier

Abortion is not a right. It is currently legal in the United States - that does not make it a right. The word "right" is thrown about way to much and has been made practically meaningless by the political left. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution nor is there a "right to privacy" found in there - the justices pulled that "right" out of their collective gluteus maximuses.

While YOU say that abortion isn't a right, the Court decided otherwise. The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.

That's a right.

Moreover, your view that if something isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution it's unconstitutional is a simpletons view of constitutional law.

Judicial Review -- the court striking down a law isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution.
Jury of peers isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution.
The right to travel, the right to vote are not specifically mentioned in the constitution and neither is separation of powers.

To suggest that only the powers mentioned specifically in the constitution are the only powers ignores implied powers, which the body of law rests upon. It's a unsophisticated view of the constitution.

[Ceece]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Abortion is not a right. It is currently legal in the United States - that does not make it a right. The word "right" is thrown about way to much and has been made practically meaningless by the political left. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution nor is there a "right to privacy" found in there - the justices pulled that "right" out of their collective gluteus maximuses.

Don't like the word "right"? Ok, then it's a private medical decision that doesn't concern you and you will never ever know about it or be effected in any way.

[Mathguy]

Abortion is here to stay, it's only an issue for politicians when they are trying to sucker you for votes or money and then ignore it after the election.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Moreover, your view that if something isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution it's unconstitutional is a simpletons view of constitutional law.

Judicial Review -- the court striking down a law isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution.
Jury of peers isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution.
The right to travel, the right to vote are not specifically mentioned in the constitution and neither is separation of powers.

To suggest that only the powers mentioned specifically in the constitution are the only powers ignores implied powers, which the body of law rests upon. It's a unsophisticated view of the constitution.

Wrong.

Judicial review - Marbury v Madison was partially decided based on the following Constitutional provision:

"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

- U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2

Interesting that you should mention judicial review - President Obama is supposedly a constitutional law expert and he thinks that judicial review is a relatively new phenomenon.

Jury trial - Trial by jury is mentioned several times in the U.S. Constitution - the Founders thought that it was very important and an invaluable safeguard against tyranny - here are just a couple instances:

"The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

- U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in(the accused's) favour, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for(theaccused's) defense.

- Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Right to vote: This is probally your most egregious falsehood - actual implying that the Constitution does not protect the right to vote for certain individuals:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

- Fifteenth Amendmend to the United States Constitution, Section 1

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representaive in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

- Twenty Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

- Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

- Twenty Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The right to travel was protected in the Articles of Confederation - the Constitutional Convention members felt that it was such a fundamental concept that it did not need to be specifically addressed in the Constitution. The "right" to have an abortion is not such a fundamental idea - and has no Constitutional basis - no matter what your opinion of Roe v. Wade. If you think it does - then amend the Constitution - until then Roe v. Wade can be overturned - and if something can be overturned - then it is not a right.

You also conveniently ignore the 10th Amendment - which specifically states that the federal government has enumerated, limited powers.

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

- Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Abortion should be left to the states to decide on their own.