Roe v. Wade

[dazzleman]

I have an alternate theory on this(I don't preach this as truth, just an idea that I thought might make some sense), which may at least partially explain the drop in violent crime - the availability of porn(free or not) on the internet lowers crime. The crime rate started dropping in the early 90's, just as computers and the internet were taking off, and the drop gets bigger as time goes on(correlating with advances in computer and internet technology). Along with the internet came porn. It's pretty much a fact that sexually frustrated people are more likely to be prone to violent acts, so the availability of release for sexual frustration on a mass scale may have had an effect on the violent crime rate. Anywho, just a little theory, I don't have any evidence to back it.

With all due respect, I think your theory is a little cockeyed.  Pornography has always been widely available in one form or another.  True, the internet makes it easier to access, but my friends and I used to buy Playboy and Penthouse when we were in high school, before the internet was really established.  Believe me, everybody I knew had access to porn of some type long before the internet.

[John Dibble]

I have an alternate theory on this(I don't preach this as truth, just an idea that I thought might make some sense), which may at least partially explain the drop in violent crime - the availability of porn(free or not) on the internet lowers crime. The crime rate started dropping in the early 90's, just as computers and the internet were taking off, and the drop gets bigger as time goes on(correlating with advances in computer and internet technology). Along with the internet came porn. It's pretty much a fact that sexually frustrated people are more likely to be prone to violent acts, so the availability of release for sexual frustration on a mass scale may have had an effect on the violent crime rate. Anywho, just a little theory, I don't have any evidence to back it.

With all due respect, I think your theory is a little cockeyed.  Pornography has always been widely available in one form or another.  True, the internet makes it easier to access, but my friends and I used to buy Playboy and Penthouse when we were in high school, before the internet was really established.  Believe me, everybody I knew had access to porn of some type long before the internet.

Not denying that, like I said, it's just a possibility, no way to prove it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Abstinence only sex ed does more harm than good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/16/opinion/16kristof.html

[dazzleman]

I think the Republican position can be explained better than the Democratic one.

The Republicans argue that abortion kills an innocent baby, who has done nothing wrong, while the death penalty kills a convicted murderer who has already taken at least one other life in a brutal manner.

The Democrats, on the other hand, argue essentially that a woman's baby is her property as long as it's in the womb, and she therefore has a right to kill it, while the state has no right to kill anybody under any circumstances.

[John Dibble]

I think the Republican position can be explained better than the Democratic one.

The Republicans argue that abortion kills an innocent baby, who has done nothing wrong, while the death penalty kills a convicted murderer who has already taken at least one other life in a brutal manner.

The Democrats, on the other hand, argue essentially that a woman's baby is her property as long as it's in the womb, and she therefore has a right to kill it, while the state has no right to kill anybody under any circumstances.

Well, there's an essential difference in the Democratic argument - they don't think that the fetus in all trimesters is a sentient human being yet.

[dazzleman]

I think the Republican position can be explained better than the Democratic one.

The Republicans argue that abortion kills an innocent baby, who has done nothing wrong, while the death penalty kills a convicted murderer who has already taken at least one other life in a brutal manner.

The Democrats, on the other hand, argue essentially that a woman's baby is her property as long as it's in the womb, and she therefore has a right to kill it, while the state has no right to kill anybody under any circumstances.

Well, there's an essential difference in the Democratic argument - they don't think that the fetus in all trimesters is a sentient human being yet.

That's what I meant when I said they define it as the mother's property.  The problem is that nobody can really say when the fetus becomes a human being.  Viability outside the womb is often given as the answer, but nobody can define that precisely.

It is a common moral tactic to deny the humanity of a person/group of people in order to justify killing them without moral guilt, and that is what the pro-abortionists have done.  I have done this myself in death penalty cases - I tell myself that the person who commits such a crime is not human, and it is therefore right to kill him.

I have not taken a hard stand on the abortion issue, and I think it is a very difficult issue, but I can't buy into the argument that abortion is a medical procedure no different than, say, having a wart removed.  The pro-abortion forces have lost a lot of credibility by taking this position.

[RJ]

Not trying to start a debate here, just looking for some info.

I heard someone a while back saying Roe vs. Wade on abortion "kicked it back to the states" meaning what the person was trying to say was that states still have the ability to govern abortion. The supreme court, of course, made it constitutional at the federal level.

I think it was Mcglaughlin(sp?) from the Mcglaughlin group who touched on this issue and used the words I wrote in quotation marks. Is this correct? If this is true, how can states govern abortion? Can they make it all together illegal?

[A18]

The federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate abortion.

What Roe v. Wade did is strike down state anti-abortion laws as unconstitutional.

They can still make regulations, but no, they can not outlaw it completely.

Nor was it ever outlawed completely. Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was legal in every state when necessary to protect the life of the mother.

[The Duke]

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.

[Frodo]

I believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that the abortion issue should be turned over to the states. If Vermont wants to allow any type of abortion to be legal and available without parental consent, if the patient is a minor, so be it but if Utah wants to allow no abortions it should have the right to do that also. If we allow the States to handle this seperately this abortion issue would be solved in many ways. Some states would allow abortions and some would not. People in any state may vote for whether or not they want abortions to be legal in their states. It solves a problem that is being mishandled by both the legislature, and the judiciary.

^^^^^^^

This would also prevent legalization of gay marriage by judicial fiat, and it would force that issue to remain on the state level where it belongs. 

[DownWithTheLeft]

Whether you agree w/the decision or not, this case was unfairly decided by activist judges and should be left up to the people, or at least legislators.

[Sam Spade]

You know, with the amount of birth control presently available on the market today, it is really inexcusable to put oneself into a position of having to get an abortion unless to save one's own life.

Just a point.

[© tweed]

You know, with the amount of birth control presently available on the market today, it is really inexcusable to put oneself into a position of having to get an abortion unless to save one's own life.

Just a point.

Condoms only work 98% of the time.  So no.  Change 'really' to 'rarely' and then you'd have a solid point.

[Sam Spade]

You know, with the amount of birth control presently available on the market today, it is really inexcusable to put oneself into a position of having to get an abortion unless to save one's own life.

Just a point.

Condoms only work 98% of the time.  So no.  Change 'really' to 'rarely' and then you'd have a solid point.

There are many, many other forms of birth control available other than just condoms.  Perhaps if you were 35 instead of 15, you might realize this.

[© tweed]

You know, with the amount of birth control presently available on the market today, it is really inexcusable to put oneself into a position of having to get an abortion unless to save one's own life.

Just a point.

Condoms only work 98% of the time.  So no.  Change 'really' to 'rarely' and then you'd have a solid point.

There are many, many other forms of birth control available other than just condoms.  Perhaps if you were 35 instead of 15, you might realize this.

I like the cheap shot, Sam!  But the point remains that no form of birth control is 100% efficient.  I just picked out condoms as a token example.

[Sam Spade]

You know, with the amount of birth control presently available on the market today, it is really inexcusable to put oneself into a position of having to get an abortion unless to save one's own life.

Just a point.

Condoms only work 98% of the time.  So no.  Change 'really' to 'rarely' and then you'd have a solid point.

There are many, many other forms of birth control available other than just condoms.  Perhaps if you were 35 instead of 15, you might realize this.

I like the cheap shot, Sam!  But the point remains that no form of birth control is 100% efficient.  I just picked out condoms as a token example.

Also, if you were 35 instead of 15, you would know that you can use multiple forms of birth control at the same time, thereby increasing efficiency.

However, my argument doesn't entail 100% efficiency.  99.9% efficiency, which I believe could be gotten pretty close to if birth control were widely used, would be effective enough, and it would reduce abortion rates to nearly zero.  This should be the goal.  Then we could eliminate abortion legally (excpet to save the mother's life) or maybe we could do it beforehand in order push people towards using birth control actively. 

[© tweed]

Again, change 'really' to 'rarely' and point taken.

[Sam Spade]

Again, change 'really' to 'rarely' and point taken.

Ok, fair enough.  I'll end the argument and cheap shots. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Pro-life/anti-Roe.

Although that's kinda confusing--I like Roe now b/c she turned around

[Nym90]

I support the concept of the right to privacy. Where to draw the line and when to consider the fetus a human being as opposed to a part of the woman's body is of course a gray area, but I don't think that drawing the line at either extreme (conception or birth) makes much logical sense.

I also don't believe that throwing women or doctors in prison is going to help anything, and that the real focus on the issue should be on education and better family structure and not on throwing people behind bars, which will really accomplish nothing and will be far more costly than any benefit.

[DWPerry]

If Roe were overturned, it would not outlaw abortion, it would just mean that each State would be left to decide if it would be legal or not in that State only. I'm sure that there is a Federal law prohibiting a minor from traveling across State lines for the purposes of obtaining an abortion.

[jerusalemcar5]

You know, with the amount of birth control presently available on the market today, it is really inexcusable to put oneself into a position of having to get an abortion unless to save one's own life.

Just a point.

Condoms only work 98% of the time.  So no.  Change 'really' to 'rarely' and then you'd have a solid point.

There are many, many other forms of birth control available other than just condoms.  Perhaps if you were 35 instead of 15, you might realize this.

I like the cheap shot, Sam!  But the point remains that no form of birth control is 100% efficient.  I just picked out condoms as a token example.

Also, if you were 35 instead of 15, you would know that you can use multiple forms of birth control at the same time, thereby increasing efficiency.

However, my argument doesn't entail 100% efficiency.  99.9% efficiency, which I believe could be gotten pretty close to if birth control were widely used, would be effective enough, and it would reduce abortion rates to nearly zero.  This should be the goal.  Then we could eliminate abortion legally (excpet to save the mother's life) or maybe we could do it beforehand in order push people towards using birth control actively. 

This is really delayed, but a couple things.  Firstly, I'd argue we have better sex ed today than twenty years ago and the average 15 yr old could tell you more about birth control than the average 35 yr old.  Secondly, have you seen those women's birth control options?  All are very scary, gross, and/or somewhat dangerous.  Male condoms should be used and if there's pregnancy, just abort it quickly, or carry it to term.

[Person Man]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well let me simple for you then: DON'T GET PREGNANT!

Castration is fun.

[bullmoose88]

I support the concept of the right to privacy. Where to draw the line and when to consider the fetus a human being as opposed to a part of the woman's body is of course a gray area, but I don't think that drawing the line at either extreme (conception or birth) makes much logical sense.

I also don't believe that throwing women or doctors in prison is going to help anything, and that the real focus on the issue should be on education and better family structure and not on throwing people behind bars, which will really accomplish nothing and will be far more costly than any benefit.

Extremely sensible post. I agree.

Then again, abortion (aside from the privacy issues) doesn't get my blood boiling.

[Person Man]

Yeah, that's how it is with a lot of republicans in the west. They just don't care. If it were illegal, they wouldn't care about it being legalized, either.

Although, another way to look at the entire roe issue is not the ruling itself but about the idea of substantive due process. I think a good way to look at that concept would be to ask outside of having a law on the books just to make a point, how would you be able to enforce such a law without violating the constitution. Could you be able to enforce a law like this without searching without a warrant? Could you be able to substantiate all the elements of the crime you claim to beyond a reasonable doubt (of course, you could just claim that the law's elements are lower, but then you would have to deal with the 8th if you are giving out 5 years for a public welfare offense).