Roe v. Wade

[Keystone Phil]

I was actually giving an good example fo why I'm not a fan of states rights in this case. 

Well you might not be a fan of it because you probably realize your view wouldn't be the view of a majority of people in the state. To me, it seemed like you were stating that only central PA would be dictating views on abortion for the whole state. Not true.

[TeePee4Prez]

I was actually giving an good example fo why I'm not a fan of states rights in this case. 

Well you might not be a fan of it because you probably realize your view wouldn't be the view of a majority of people in the state. To me, it seemed like you were stating that only central PA would be dictating views on abortion for the whole state. Not true.

I know that, but the Southeast portion is densely populated and generally pro-choice.

[Keystone Phil]

I was actually giving an good example fo why I'm not a fan of states rights in this case. 

Well you might not be a fan of it because you probably realize your view wouldn't be the view of a majority of people in the state. To me, it seemed like you were stating that only central PA would be dictating views on abortion for the whole state. Not true.

I know that, but the Southeast portion is densely populated and generally pro-choice.

And that has nothing to do with the overall belief of the state.

[TeePee4Prez]

I was actually giving an good example fo why I'm not a fan of states rights in this case. 

Well you might not be a fan of it because you probably realize your view wouldn't be the view of a majority of people in the state. To me, it seemed like you were stating that only central PA would be dictating views on abortion for the whole state. Not true.

I know that, but the Southeast portion is densely populated and generally pro-choice.

And that has nothing to do with the overall belief of the state.

My point was PA's boundaries are really not reflective of it's general values.  there are to many different cultures in PA to amke Roe a states' rights issue.  There will be millions unhappy in PA if Roe were overturned and our legislature decided it.  A solution would be to go to Maryland or New Jersey, but there may be some stupid national laws that may make it harder such as this "Child Custody and Prtection Act" IIRC is on the floor right now or is pending.

[Keystone Phil]

I was actually giving an good example fo why I'm not a fan of states rights in this case. 

Well you might not be a fan of it because you probably realize your view wouldn't be the view of a majority of people in the state. To me, it seemed like you were stating that only central PA would be dictating views on abortion for the whole state. Not true.

I know that, but the Southeast portion is densely populated and generally pro-choice.

And that has nothing to do with the overall belief of the state.

My point was PA's boundaries are really not reflective of it's general values. 

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The Pro-Life position is not reflective of what most people in this state believe? Is that you're point?
 

[TeePee4Prez]

I was actually giving an good example fo why I'm not a fan of states rights in this case. 

Well you might not be a fan of it because you probably realize your view wouldn't be the view of a majority of people in the state. To me, it seemed like you were stating that only central PA would be dictating views on abortion for the whole state. Not true.

I know that, but the Southeast portion is densely populated and generally pro-choice.

And that has nothing to do with the overall belief of the state.

My point was PA's boundaries are really not reflective of it's general values. 

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The Pro-Life position is not reflective of what most people in this state believe? Is that you're point?
 

Not at all.  I know most of what's outside the Southeast is pro-life.  The thing is it's only 50-55%, not an overwhelming majority.  I couldn't leave 45-50% out in the cold.  This state would be sharply divided if Roe were overturned.  Take it a step further... Should abortion be a "municipality rights issue"?  States' rights i not a good concept for Roe.   

[Keystone Phil]

I was actually giving an good example fo why I'm not a fan of states rights in this case. 

Well you might not be a fan of it because you probably realize your view wouldn't be the view of a majority of people in the state. To me, it seemed like you were stating that only central PA would be dictating views on abortion for the whole state. Not true.

I know that, but the Southeast portion is densely populated and generally pro-choice.

And that has nothing to do with the overall belief of the state.

My point was PA's boundaries are really not reflective of it's general values. 

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The Pro-Life position is not reflective of what most people in this state believe? Is that you're point?
 

Not at all.  I know most of what's outside the Southeast is pro-life.  The thing is it's only 50-55%, not an overwhelming majority.  I couldn't leave 45-50% out in the cold.  This state would be sharply divided if Roe were overturned.  Take it a step further... Should abortion be a "municipality rights issue"?  States' rights i not a good concept for Roe.   

If 45% disapproved of a major tax hike, what would you think of that?

[TeePee4Prez]

Planned Parenthood would fight that quite ferociously.  I doubt Roe will be overturned.  Of course I don't want to make abortion a States Rights issue because people in this area would have to go to Maryland or New Jersey.

[Keystone Phil]

Planned Parenthood would fight that quite ferociously.  I doubt Roe will be overturned.  Of course I don't want to make abortion a States Rights issue because people in this area would have to go to Maryland or New Jersey.

You didn't answer my question.

[TeePee4Prez]

Well, the majortiy rules, I guess. Thing is state boundaries are really messed up.  I remember an Inquirer article stating what the boundaries should be.  You have to agree with me that Pennsylvania is extremely diverse though.

[Keystone Phil]

Well, the majortiy rules, I guess. Thing is state boundaries are really messed up.  I remember an Inquirer article stating what the boundaries should be.  You have to agree with me that Pennsylvania is extremely diverse though.

It is diverse but you just stated that the majority rules so if abortion was to be overturned by a majority, what would be the big deal?

[TeePee4Prez]

Well, the majortiy rules, I guess. Thing is state boundaries are really messed up.  I remember an Inquirer article stating what the boundaries should be.  You have to agree with me that Pennsylvania is extremely diverse though.

It is diverse but you just stated that the majority rules so if abortion was to be overturned by a majority, what would be the big deal?

Within what jurisdiction?  National, state, or county?  You know Philadelphia and Montgomery will fight that tooth and nail.

[Keystone Phil]

Well, the majortiy rules, I guess. Thing is state boundaries are really messed up.  I remember an Inquirer article stating what the boundaries should be.  You have to agree with me that Pennsylvania is extremely diverse though.

It is diverse but you just stated that the majority rules so if abortion was to be overturned by a majority, what would be the big deal?

Within what jurisdiction?  National, state, or county?  You know Philadelphia and Montgomery will fight that tooth and nail.

State. Just as you said majority rules in regards to a major tax hike (on the state level) then I guess the majority rules when it comes to abortion (on the state level).

[TeePee4Prez]

I'm making many arguments against makign abortion a states rights issue.  I feel the Feds shoudl superced it.  Now about taxes.. Yes, states can levy their own taxes as they see fit.  there is a difference.

[Erc]

Don't really care about abortion (slightly pro-life)

Anti-Wade.  (And anti-Griswold, for that matter...)

[Lunar]

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

[J.R. Brown]

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.

[A18]

No, actually the Supreme Court already threw out the argument that the right to an abortion is included in any right to privacy inherent in the Constitution.

It's now justified by Amendments 5 and 14, specifically provisions pertaining to life, liberty, or property.

The Supreme Court has upheld that the right to liberty includes abortion, which is one of the dumbest arguments any court has ever made in the history of mankind, but hey, whatever.

In other words, it's just complete judicial activism that doesn't even pretend to be anything else.

It would be no different than me striking down the progressive income tax and saying, "it violates liberty."

If courts can do that, there is no need for legislatures.

[The Duke]

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.

[opebo]

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.

Certainly it is an outrage to individual freedom that our right to shoot heroin is not recognized by the State.  Your point is a good one though - it is odd that some freedoms are being gauranteed while many others are still being trampled.  One can only hope we will see a move towards more rather than less individual privacy and freedom, but with the current political climate the converse looks likely.

[ATFFL]

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

[A18]

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

What does that have to do with anything?

[John Dibble]

The framers wouldn't have even been able to fathom such a procedure as an abortion.

Incorrect - abortion has been around for thousands of years.

[The Duke]

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

By your interpretation, this allows anything that you think should be allowed simply because it isn't specifically prohibited.

[A18]

Might as well abolish Congress if you're going to give the courts that kind of power.