Roe v. Wade (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 20, 2024, 01:13:08 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Roe v. Wade (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: What is your position on Roe?
#1
Pro-choice/Pro-Roe
 
#2
Pro-choice/Anti-Roe
 
#3
Pro-life/Pro-Roe
 
#4
Pro-life/Anti-Roe
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 67

Author Topic: Roe v. Wade  (Read 31473 times)
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,240


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

« on: February 16, 2005, 01:19:07 PM »

Or you could just read the ruling to see how it is justified...

You know, some of us liked the Constitution just fine before Warren, Brennan, and Marshall "interpreted" it, and some of us think the text of the Constitution matters more than court opinions.

It does not specifacally say that women have the right to get an abortion. The framers wouldn't have even been able to fathom such a procedure as an abortion. However, it is implied that every individual has the right to privacy and that includes that individuals own body. And where exactly does it say that a fetus is counted as a whole person? The framers counted African-Americans as three-fifths of a person when taking a census. How much would a fetus be counted for? Maybe it would depend on that fetuses color of skin.

If this is what the courts have found, why don't I have the right to shoot heroin?  Hey, its my body.  But the judges have an ideology that doesn't include legalizing heroin, so they don't apply their standard consistently.  They only apply it where their ideology says its fine.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,240


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2005, 01:49:58 PM »


By your interpretation, this allows anything that you think should be allowed simply because it isn't specifically prohibited.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,240


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2005, 05:09:37 PM »

roe vs. wade is really irrelevant.

if it were overturned today, it wouldnt stop some women from wanting the procedure.

im very much opposed to abortion personally. but im adult enough to realize that some people feel differently than me. why should i tell them what not to do?

For the same reason we ban anything, because sometimes what you're doing is simply wrong.  Why should anyone be allowed to stop me from eating my neighbor and wearing his face as a hat?  Because its wrong, and someone need to tell me so.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,240


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2005, 02:26:08 AM »

Roe struck down nearly all state abortion laws.  McGlaughlin got it backwards, he probably misspoke.  Roe ended state regulations of abortion.

However, Roe is not the relevant standard anymore on abortion.  The current standard is from Casey v. Planned Parenthood of PA, which established a series of standards under which abortion could be regulated by either the states or the federal government.  Every attempt to restrict abortion has been struck down by the court in subsequent cases on the grounds that it failed the Casey standard.

That's the short version, wait for peter Bell if you want a really good explaination.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 11 queries.