Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Roe V Wade is based on Griswald V Connecticut, which from a legal logic standpoint, is a huge abomination of a precedent. The court basically said there was not language in the Constitution to support the case brought, but we think the Constitution kinda, sorta suggests support, so we're going to confer a completely new right. That's the case that needs to be overturned, which would have the effect of taking Roe down with it.
Bingo. SCOTUS cannot confer imaginary Constitutional Rights. To grant a new Constitutional Right, the Constitution would have to be Amended.
Your argument is that since it's law and about 50% of people support it -- your 60% figure is high, BTW -- than it needs to remain as law? Nothing else? Solid argument. Kudos.
Probably exactly the same argument could have been made for keeping slavery legal
Anyone can buy an abortion kit online from different parts of the world, and you can do your abortion in the comfort of your home.
Overturning Roe v. Wade will accomplish absolutely nothing!
This is largely my intuition. To the extent that abortion can be done via a couple of pills its going to be as easy as scoring pot. You can't stop it anymore than you can win the war on drugs. It's just a wedge issue, the same way police brutality can largely be fixed with body cams and independent review.
Returning Federal powers to the States would also, mean loss of Federal Funding to the States.
They're not Federal powers. To be a Federal issue, it would have to be one of the specifically limited, enumerated powers in Article I Section 8. Regulating abortion (or ANY health care issue, for that matter) isn't included. Neither is education or public assistance welfare programs. All of those are powers the US Constitution delegates to the States.
Probably exactly the same argument could have been made for keeping slavery legal
I get tired of the "it is/was a law so it's OK" argument.
Governments used to chop peoples heads off, burn people at the stake. Kings used to rape women on their wedding night. Tribes used to decapitate enemies and play football with their heads.
Shall we go back to that? I mean, really. Be nice if posters could at least rub 4 brain cells together before posting.
I'm for the right of a woman to get an abortion. I think it's her body, it's her choice. To me, if anything was growing on or in me, I'd like to be able to remove it too. Everyone makes mistakes. Cannot blame a young girl for being pregnant. The baby/fetus in the early stages is not sentient, cannot feel pain, think, or is aware of itself.
That being said, it's pretty constrained logic [the way I see it] that the right of abortion is in the Constitution. I think the Roe v Wade decision is a bad decision. If we want to legalize abortion at the federal level, we should pass an amendment. I'd vote for it.
Roe v. Wade is clearly a violation of the 10th amendment and states' rights. If something like this were to be legal, it'd be up to the states to decide and no higher.
Bingo! 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPC324
This is completely lost on most people when dealing with these issues. The talking heads and news media want to make every SCOTUS case or proposed legislation an EMOTIONAL issue instead of a LEGAL issue. (Same with ACA- take away the intent and emotional aspect and it is simply bad law)
I'm with you: this is a state issue. Any overturning of Roe would make it so, but the sound bites will all lead the uninformed to believe that it is a nationwide abortion ban.
That is exactly the problem. WAY too many people are easily duped by that deliberate attempt at obfuscation.
Those liberals will sure be needed in Oklahoma when and if Roe vs Wade is overturned to pass around a petition to vote on overturning the state law that automatically bans abortion when Roe vs Wade is overturned.
Roosevelt thought he would have to pack the supreme court but ended up not needing to. Enough judges ended up supporting his policies.
That is why I said if the SCOTUS decides if favor of restricting abortion rights. That would open the floodgates. And Biden would pretty much have to do it. Right now its unclear how conservative the court will be in cases that reverse previous rulings.
That being said, it's pretty constrained logic [the way I see it] that the right of abortion is in the Constitution.
I wonder what the founders would say on the topic...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
