Would you support overturning Roe v. Wade?

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Yes I would.

The states should have the power to kill babies or not. I personally believe it is capital murder.

Now this is a really f**ked up position. if you truly believe that abortion is murder, why should the states have the right to legalize it?

[Senator Incitatus]

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

Even Roe itself states that the right to privacy does not trump all other considerations. Granted, Roe gave so little consideration to prenatal life, that it set viability outside the womb as the point where the government can act. However, Roe provides no justification for why the Constitution does not permit allowing greater consideration to prenatal life. Casey just punts on this issue and says it's because Roe says so.

I don't think I've ever actually seen someone strongly defend "the right to privacy" or "the right to an abortion" and demonstrate that they've read Blackmun's opinion (or Casey or even Griswold).

[pbrower2a]

No.

Abortion is a desperate choice, one of medical necessity or of some other troublesome nature of the pregnancy.  People will get abortions by traveling overseas, if necessary. Medical necessity? One ancient religious tradition considers an abortion under such a circumstance obligatory.  

Pro-life people have every right to use moral suasion to get females who have troublesome pregnancies (let us suppose that some white girl with racist parents gets knocked up by some black man) to carry the infant to term for adoption by a couple who wants a child. That will take compassion and genuine care, and it will not be cheap.

By the way -- here's a proposition for a true pro-life measure: outlaw the sale of intoxicating liquors to pregnant women. That would greatly reduce the number of children born with fetal alcohol syndrome.  

[S019]

Yes, but I would want a ruling to say that exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother, must exist

[Senator Incitatus]

No...

By the way -- here's a proposition for a true pro-life measure: outlaw the sale of intoxicating liquors to pregnant women. That would greatly reduce the number of children born with fetal alcohol syndrome.  

This should be done in addition to banning abortion.

[brucejoel99]

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

There is no "right to privacy", let alone a "Fundamental Right To Privacy".

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

That's the 4th Amendment, and the standards by which a warrant to search can be obtained.

From Griswold v. Connecticut, Mr. Justice Black wrote:  ""I like my privacy as well as the next man. Unlike my brethren, I am simply unable to find a constitutional right to it."  There are rights that involve Privacy, and Roe v. Wade debates "penumbras" (zones of privacy), but there is no enumerated Constitutional right to "privacy".

Oh please, anyone who knows anything worth a lick of constitutional law knows damn well that A) a right doesn't have to be specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the people to possess it; & B) that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion within numerous constitutional protections.

Moreover, the right to privacy isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights, yes. But specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life & substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the 1st Amendment is one. The 3rd Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The 4th Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The 5th Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The 9th Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Also, you know that Justice Black's was a dissenting opinion, which means it's worth nothing when it comes to what the law actually is & how we're to interpret it.

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

Even Roe itself states that the right to privacy does not trump all other considerations. Granted, Roe gave so little consideration to prenatal life, that it set viability outside the womb as the point where the government can act. However, Roe provides no justification for why the Constitution does not permit allowing greater consideration to prenatal life. Casey just punts on this issue and says it's because Roe says so.

This is true, yes. They ruled that the right to privacy isn't absolute & must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health & protecting prenatal life... hence their ruling that during the 3rd trimester, the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life, & could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health (which  itself overturned of course, since under its fetus viability framework, the state could promote its interest in the "potentiality of human life" at the point of viability & subsequent to viability by regulating, or possibly proscribing, abortion "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.").

[Progressive Pessimist]

Should Roe v. Wade be overturned? Absolutely f***ing not!

No, leave it alone.

I am personally pro-life but I don't get involved.

It is a private, personal decision. Let the woman and her family bear the consequences.

I wish more "pro-lifers" thought like you. Seriously, this is the way it should be.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

There is no "right to privacy", let alone a "Fundamental Right To Privacy".

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

That's the 4th Amendment, and the standards by which a warrant to search can be obtained.

From Griswold v. Connecticut, Mr. Justice Black wrote:  ""I like my privacy as well as the next man. Unlike my brethren, I am simply unable to find a constitutional right to it."  There are rights that involve Privacy, and Roe v. Wade debates "penumbras" (zones of privacy), but there is no enumerated Constitutional right to "privacy".

Oh please, anyone who knows anything worth a lick of constitutional law knows damn well that A) a right doesn't have to be specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the people to possess it; & B) that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion within numerous constitutional protections.

Moreover, the right to privacy isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights, yes. But specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life & substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the 1st Amendment is one. The 3rd Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The 4th Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The 5th Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The 9th Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Also, you know that Justice Black's was a dissenting opinion, which means it's worth nothing when it comes to what the law actually is & how we're to interpret it.

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

Even Roe itself states that the right to privacy does not trump all other considerations. Granted, Roe gave so little consideration to prenatal life, that it set viability outside the womb as the point where the government can act. However, Roe provides no justification for why the Constitution does not permit allowing greater consideration to prenatal life. Casey just punts on this issue and says it's because Roe says so.

This is true, yes. They ruled that the right to privacy isn't absolute & must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health & protecting prenatal life... hence their ruling that during the 3rd trimester, the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life, & could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health (which  itself overturned of course, since under its fetus viability framework, the state could promote its interest in the "potentiality of human life" at the point of viability & subsequent to viability by regulating, or possibly proscribing, abortion "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.").

What an awakening!

I mean, I was taught that our Constitution was a system of ENUMERATED Rights; that when a Court declared something a "right" it was rooted in an enumerated right listed in the Constitution.  Obviously, my professors had their heads stuck in a very dark place.

What law can their be if we can just create rights out of whole cloth?  Even more ominously, what rights can be taken away if the concept of enumerated rights is relegated to something honored only in the breach?

[brucejoel99]

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

There is no "right to privacy", let alone a "Fundamental Right To Privacy".

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

That's the 4th Amendment, and the standards by which a warrant to search can be obtained.

From Griswold v. Connecticut, Mr. Justice Black wrote:  ""I like my privacy as well as the next man. Unlike my brethren, I am simply unable to find a constitutional right to it."  There are rights that involve Privacy, and Roe v. Wade debates "penumbras" (zones of privacy), but there is no enumerated Constitutional right to "privacy".

Oh please, anyone who knows anything worth a lick of constitutional law knows damn well that A) a right doesn't have to be specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the people to possess it; & B) that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion within numerous constitutional protections.

Moreover, the right to privacy isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights, yes. But specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life & substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the 1st Amendment is one. The 3rd Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The 4th Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The 5th Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The 9th Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Also, you know that Justice Black's was a dissenting opinion, which means it's worth nothing when it comes to what the law actually is & how we're to interpret it.

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

Even Roe itself states that the right to privacy does not trump all other considerations. Granted, Roe gave so little consideration to prenatal life, that it set viability outside the womb as the point where the government can act. However, Roe provides no justification for why the Constitution does not permit allowing greater consideration to prenatal life. Casey just punts on this issue and says it's because Roe says so.

This is true, yes. They ruled that the right to privacy isn't absolute & must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health & protecting prenatal life... hence their ruling that during the 3rd trimester, the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life, & could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health (which  itself overturned of course, since under its fetus viability framework, the state could promote its interest in the "potentiality of human life" at the point of viability & subsequent to viability by regulating, or possibly proscribing, abortion "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.").

What an awakening!

I mean, I was taught that our Constitution was a system of ENUMERATED Rights; that when a Court declared something a "right" it was rooted in an enumerated right listed in the Constitution.  Obviously, my professors had their heads stuck in a very dark place.

What law can their be if we can just create rights out of whole cloth?  Even more ominously, what rights can be taken away if the concept of enumerated rights is relegated to something honored only in the breach?

Welp, I guess your professors just forgot that the 9th Amendment, y'know, exists: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Our constitution is one of enumerated powers, not enumerated rights.  Some people were opposed to the idea of a Bill of Rights precisely because they feared people would think rights are granted by being enumerated as Fuzzy Thinking apparently believes.  However it is precisely because the relevant rights are not enumerated when it comes to abortion that having the Court decide how to set the balance between them (right to privacy for women vs. right to life for the unborn) is wrong in my view of the Constitution.  There's a reason for the order of the first three articles. The President should defer to Congress and the Courts should defer to the Congress and the President in the absence of explicit reasons in the Constitution.

[darklordoftech]

If that's what it takes to break the Religious Right...

[Sir Mohamed]

Nah, I'm pro-choice and proud of it. I'd support a constitutional amendment to ban all abortion bans, particularly in the first 4 months of pregnancy.

[PragmaticPopulist]

No. Above all, I see this as a civil liberties issue. Personally, I have strong reservations about it, but it's not for me to decide what a woman does with her own body. It would be like someone having the right to barge into someone else's bedroom.

[Person Man]

No. Above all, I see this as a civil liberties issue. Personally, I have strong reservations about it, but it's not for me to decide what a woman does with her own body. It would be like someone having the right to barge into someone else's bedroom.

What! You don't do that?

[Slander and/or Libel]

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

There is no "right to privacy", let alone a "Fundamental Right To Privacy".

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

That's the 4th Amendment, and the standards by which a warrant to search can be obtained.

From Griswold v. Connecticut, Mr. Justice Black wrote:  ""I like my privacy as well as the next man. Unlike my brethren, I am simply unable to find a constitutional right to it."  There are rights that involve Privacy, and Roe v. Wade debates "penumbras" (zones of privacy), but there is no enumerated Constitutional right to "privacy".

Oh please, anyone who knows anything worth a lick of constitutional law knows damn well that A) a right doesn't have to be specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the people to possess it; & B) that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion within numerous constitutional protections.

Moreover, the right to privacy isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights, yes. But specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life & substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the 1st Amendment is one. The 3rd Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The 4th Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The 5th Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The 9th Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Also, you know that Justice Black's was a dissenting opinion, which means it's worth nothing when it comes to what the law actually is & how we're to interpret it.

No. Given the fundamental right to privacy, a woman has the right to protect her health & control her future.

Even Roe itself states that the right to privacy does not trump all other considerations. Granted, Roe gave so little consideration to prenatal life, that it set viability outside the womb as the point where the government can act. However, Roe provides no justification for why the Constitution does not permit allowing greater consideration to prenatal life. Casey just punts on this issue and says it's because Roe says so.

This is true, yes. They ruled that the right to privacy isn't absolute & must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health & protecting prenatal life... hence their ruling that during the 3rd trimester, the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life, & could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health (which  itself overturned of course, since under its fetus viability framework, the state could promote its interest in the "potentiality of human life" at the point of viability & subsequent to viability by regulating, or possibly proscribing, abortion "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.").

What an awakening!

I mean, I was taught that our Constitution was a system of ENUMERATED Rights; that when a Court declared something a "right" it was rooted in an enumerated right listed in the Constitution.  Obviously, my professors had their heads stuck in a very dark place.

What law can their be if we can just create rights out of whole cloth?  Even more ominously, what rights can be taken away if the concept of enumerated rights is relegated to something honored only in the breach?

Welp, I guess your professors just forgot that the 9th Amendment, y'know, exists: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I'm glad somebody got there before me, because this was a true embarrassment of a post by Fuzzy.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Yes.

[Hermit For Peace]

No. abortions are going to happen whether it's legal or not, and if it's made illegal then these abortions will become incredibly unsafe and possibly fatal for the mothers. we can't go back to the era of back alley abortions.

You are exactly right on. I had an abortion when I was 18, but because it was illegal in the United States I had to go to Mexico. I was alone in a foreign country, at age 18, having this procedure. It was through a religious organization so I felt confident that I would be safe, but nevertheless...WHY should any female have to go through this?

I know that most of the posters here are males, so I will say that you don't really know what you're talking about, in my opinion, unless you are pro-choice. It's easy to say anything you want about how females should not have abortions, but you guys need to get out of our wombs and STOP the moralizing.

It's none of your business.

Do you want society in your pants, legislating what you do with your private body parts?

[Hermit For Peace]

And here's another rant. It takes two to tango, and men are just as responsible for pregnancies as females.

Why don't males take better precautions to keep pregnancies from occurring?

Men need to get in better control of their sex drive.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Do you want society in your pants, legislating what you do with your private body parts?

Yes? There should be much stiffer penalties on the man for premarital relations obviously.

[HillGoose]

idk man on the one hand it's something the government did and the government doing stuff = bad but on the other hand it restricted the ability of the government to make laws to control people so that's good.

I say leave as it is because this is all just a big distraction anyway. The man has probably used all this to do other freedom-restricting stuff like raise taxes or ban guns and we just don't know about it yet because the lamestream media is so focused on the abortion issue.

[Badger]

Do you want society in your pants, legislating what you do with your private body parts?

Yes? There should be much stiffer penalties on the man for premarital relations obviously.

Hermit makes a truly courageous personal revelation , and you troll her post.

Can you give it a rest just once?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Do you want society in your pants, legislating what you do with your private body parts?

Yes? There should be much stiffer penalties on the man for premarital relations obviously.

Hermit makes a truly courageous personal revelation , and you troll her post.

Can you give it a rest just once?

Yet again you make an outrageously false accusation against me. I will continue to push for the theocracy we deserve whenever and wherever the situation calls for it. The law of God applies to both sexes. We are nothing if not consistent.

[Badger]

No. abortions are going to happen whether it's legal or not, and if it's made illegal then these abortions will become incredibly unsafe and possibly fatal for the mothers. we can't go back to the era of back alley abortions.

You are exactly right on. I had an abortion when I was 18, but because it was illegal in the United States I had to go to Mexico. I was alone in a foreign country, at age 18, having this procedure. It was through a religious organization so I felt confident that I would be safe, but nevertheless...WHY should any female have to go through this?

I know that most of the posters here are males, so I will say that you don't really know what you're talking about, in my opinion, unless you are pro-choice. It's easy to say anything you want about how females should not have abortions, but you guys need to get out of our wombs and STOP the moralizing.

It's none of your business.

Do you want society in your pants, legislating what you do with your private body parts?

Thank you for offering your personal experience in this matter, hermit. Although men, including pro-choicers like myself, have a right to be heard, like Joe Republic pointed out earlier it is very very telling, not to mention Peak Atlas, how very very few women if any have commented in this thread. Let alone someone who actually dealt with the risks and horrors of having to get an abortion in the pre Roe v Wade era.

Thank you again for bringing back some real world perspective to this debate.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No. abortions are going to happen whether it's legal or not, and if it's made illegal then these abortions will become incredibly unsafe and possibly fatal for the mothers. we can't go back to the era of back alley abortions.

You are exactly right on. I had an abortion when I was 18, but because it was illegal in the United States I had to go to Mexico. I was alone in a foreign country, at age 18, having this procedure. It was through a religious organization so I felt confident that I would be safe, but nevertheless...WHY should any female have to go through this?

I know that most of the posters here are males, so I will say that you don't really know what you're talking about, in my opinion, unless you are pro-choice. It's easy to say anything you want about how females should not have abortions, but you guys need to get out of our wombs and STOP the moralizing.

It's none of your business.

Do you want society in your pants, legislating what you do with your private body parts?

How was the abortion illegal in the US but not in Mexico?  That's surprising.
And a religious organization helped you get it?

[Tartarus Sauce]

No. abortions are going to happen whether it's legal or not, and if it's made illegal then these abortions will become incredibly unsafe and possibly fatal for the mothers. we can't go back to the era of back alley abortions.

You are exactly right on. I had an abortion when I was 18, but because it was illegal in the United States I had to go to Mexico. I was alone in a foreign country, at age 18, having this procedure. It was through a religious organization so I felt confident that I would be safe, but nevertheless...WHY should any female have to go through this?

I know that most of the posters here are males, so I will say that you don't really know what you're talking about, in my opinion, unless you are pro-choice. It's easy to say anything you want about how females should not have abortions, but you guys need to get out of our wombs and STOP the moralizing.

It's none of your business.

Do you want society in your pants, legislating what you do with your private body parts?

How was the abortion illegal in the US but not in Mexico?  That's surprising.
And a religious organization helped you get it?

Yeah that all threw me for a loop as well.