As I'm sure you all know, yesterday was the 30th anniversary of the Roe v Wade desicion...And people everywhere were going crazy about it.

Pro-choicers are afraid that now that both houses are controlled by the GOP that the case may be overturned and abortions may be illegal again.

Oh the drama! No matter what this is unconstitutional, am I wrong? If they end up amending the constitution to pass this law against abortion, they may just be taking away all of our freedoms, considering the case used the 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments...Some of the uses of these amendments are a bit cloudy, but hey, they won!

Let's try to not do the whole abortion debate, that won't get us anywhere really; but do you all think that if this is overturned that nearly all of our freedoms will be in jeapordy? Or am I over-reacting?

I like these new smileys:devil:

I seriously doubt the overturning of Roe v. Wade would have lasting impact on the basic application of the constitutional amendments involved. The connection to them was a bit tenuous, anyway.

The sky is not falling...

You are 100% wrong ,Roe vs. Wade was an improper extension of federal powers. Abortion should be up to the states. Our Constitution is jeopardized whenever it is improperly interpreted to agree with the mentality of the moment.

I don't think Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned, Since about 2/3 of the people are pro-choice. Maybe they are going to do something with partial birth abortion. I think overturning roe v. wade would change the definition of personal freedom.

I disagree, I don't think that this should be up to the states OR the federal government. This shouldn't even be a political issue in my opinion, it should be a private issue. The reason the Bill of Rights was used at the federal level is because the states don't all have Constitutions that guarantee personal privacy rights.

The 14th Amendment though guarantees the Bill of Rights to apply to all Americans, reguardless of what state they live in:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the Unites States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."

This shows that the states cannot take away personal freedoms, therefore no matter what, this amendment would have to be changed in order to make abortion illegal. Without our 14th amendment, we only have freedom at the federal level...Don't you understand what a big deal this is?

Not exactly...

One must remember, that the entire basis of criminal law is "taking away personal freedoms" or rather passing a law discouraging and making illegal acting on these "freedoms". The trick is defining what these freedoms are or should be. And, in this particular debate, defining what freedoms are actually protected by the constitution. Example: the "freedom" to steal is not protected by the constitution.

I disagree. The basis of criminal law is to prevent the infringement of people's rights. Thus, one can not steal because it infringes upon the secure property right of the victim.

Does anyone know if there are any actual cases regarding abortion on this calendar term for the Supreme Court? If not, then our freedoms are as secure as they have been (that's not saying much in light of the Patriot Act I know). If so, I'd like to learn more about the case.

That's right ,of course.

What I was trying to get across is that law by nature infringes on "personal freedoms" in order to protect rights. The question of what freedoms should be "rights" is the critical one, I suppose.

I think you mean "the basis of criminal law should be to prevent the infringement of peoples' rights". In this country, at least, that is most certainly not the case. Were it so, there would be no laws regulating victimless crimes - and no legislation regulating individuals' rights concerning their own bodies.


I think, to an extent, this depends on how you define freedom. In the broadest possible sense, yuou would be correct. Personally I prefer to make distinctions between personal freedom and license. License, to me, is undue freedom which can impinge on the freedom of others. A law against theft, for example, could restrict my "freedom" to steal, but as Jaime opints out that "freedom" would impinge on another individual's rights. I would, therefore, consider theft "taking license" rather than "exercising freedom".

As far as I'm concerned, the courts have no business deciding what any woman does with her own body. Were SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade, I would definitely see that as a curtailment of freedom. Should any more Justices than Rehnquist and O'Connor resign while Bush the Lesser is still in the White House and he be successful in replacing them with even more activist right-wing judges, I would not be at all surprised if there weren't a reversal of Roe v. Wade. And I would see that as a very bad sign regarding many more of our rights.

I take no comfort in the fact that a majority of Americans support freedom of choice in relation to the termination of pregnancies. The Supreme Court as it is has no regard whatsoever for the will of the people - and, to an extent, it shouldn't. But should even more extremist justices be appointed to its ranks, there would be no stopping a distinctly partisan agenda from being effected.

Of course, the opinion that abortion would be a victimless crime (if it was a crime) is one with no constitutional basis. The constitution does not address abortion. I don't see this argument as affecting the constitution itself. It is rather a narrow interpretation issue, with limited applicability to other issues.

Ultimately, no matter which side of the issue you are on - the judges that are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate do represent the will of the people.

The makeup of the Senate as it is now, represents the will of the people as per the last election.

This doesn't happen in a vacuum.

The founding fathers knew that they could not address many issues that were not issues then, so the 9th Amendment was passed to include issues such as abortion:

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

If you don't think that reproductive privacy would fit perfectly in here, I'd love to hear what you do think would fit with the 9th Amendment.

This isn't a "narrow interpretation", it fits PERFECTLY.

And Basheva, I'm just wondering why you'd rather point out that it's up to the officials and not the people on a debate forum...I've seen you do this before...Do you have an opinion about what should be done by these officials, or do you think it's pointless to debate?

Of course I don't think it's pointless to debate - that's why I am here

However, I see constantly the point being made that someone what the judges/policitians do some how just happens, isn't true. They are either put in their positions by the electorate or appointed to their positions by representatives of the electorate.

I don't think you have understood me, or I haven't made myself as clear as I should. I don't think it's up to the officials, I think it's up to the people to put the officials in place that they think will carry out their wishes.

The question is, again, what these "certain rights are". Do they include the killing of a fetus? Or, as is it is phrased in the abortion debate, is a fetus worthy of receiving legal protection?

If a fetus is worthy of receiving legal protection (I believe so, but that is more appropriately discussed in the abortion thread, where I have laid out my argument) the pregnancy isn't truly private, it involves both the mother and fetus.

The point is there is room for debate here, there is room for debate of all "rights" not explicitly listed in the constitution.

Why would you say is fits perfectly? I believe that's an exaggeration...

We're coming at this at different angles, turnea.

I see this as a reproductive privacy issue, and you seem to see this as murder of an individual...I don't want to really get into religion or anything, but I agree with you that these fetuses have souls or however one may put this, and I would NEVER in a million years have an abortion myself.

BUT

Faith is what makes me believe in souls and spirits, and not fact. Is it faith that makes you think that this fetus is nearly a person? (Please correct me if I'm off track here.) Science tells me that this fetus cannot survive independant of its mother, so since the fetus at that point is technically an extension of the mother, she should have the right to make the desicion in my opinion.

Besides, who are you and I, or George Bush for that matter, to judge people souly dependant on religious reasons? I feel we are not.

"Certain rights" are the gray areas such as this in my opinion. Right to privacy, Right to reproduce or not, Right to choose what you do with your body etc.

My objection is not religious. Considering that the law does not serve to protect souls, but lives. It is not faith, but science that makes me believe a fetus is a living human being.



Why does being dependant on the mother make the fetus an extension of the mother? That is a bit of a leap...

Science tell us the fetus is living, human and not part of the mother. That is enough for me to suggest that the fetus be given legal protection.

I have laid out my argument in detail in the
abortion thread

For this reason, I do not believe restricting abortion is an invasion of the right to privacy.

Thanks for further explaining your point of view turnea, I understand it more clearly, however I think we must agree to disagree at this point. hehe

You're right, but this is not an issue of what a woman does with her OWN body, but what she does with another person's body. Yes, I realize that this body, under most circumstances, wouldn't be able to support itself, but I don't see this as important. This life, or "life potential" if you will, is still a creation that deserves protection, if for nothing more than the fact that it cannot protect itself. I mean, this is something that, without some form of outside interference, WILL become a human life form. Therefore, I wouldn't mind seeing Roe v. Wade overturned, nor do I think that a woman's right to choose will be infringed upon by it. The woman has the right to choose whether or not she gets pregnant in the first place, and this is where the CHOICE should be made. The only time I could ever agree with abortion is in a circumstance where the life of the mother is, or would be, jeopardized by the carrying and/or deliverance of the infant, wherein both mother and infant would perish anyway.



Reproductive privacy IS protected by the 9th Amendment, and the Supreme Court has upheld this before, in such instances as Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), where the Supreme Court upheld the right of individuals to use contraceptives, regardless of local regulations. In the same manner as I described it above, abortion goes beyond reproductive privacy. The 9th Amendment cannot apply to certain things, like murder and theft, as has been exemplified on this board previously. Its simply a matter of opinion (or morals, religion, etc.) whether or not one feels abortion is included in this. Abortion has been, like many "rights", abused, and the rates continue to increase. I think I heard something like 33 or 34 abortions per 100 live births, simply another method of birth-control, for those that prefer not to use condoms or the pill (or another of many other contraceptives). I just find this sad when some people can't even have kids and would consider a pregnancy a blessing, not some possession that can be tossed aside as if it never existed.

Bottom line, I would not be surprised nor saddened by an overturning of Roe v. Wade. Here's hoping it happens...

I don't understand that first part at all, infringed what? huh?

And as I said, this all comes down to morals and religion. Whatever happened to separation of church and state??

I know abortions are used too often and for the wrong reasons many times, however thihs doesn't mean that the government then gets the power to take a right away, period.

Maybe we could all meet somewhere in the middle--the freedom of speech is restricted in an instance such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, maybe we could limit the number of abortions a woman can get, or something else to fancy you.

Bottom line is this fetus cannot survive without the mother and therefore is not human and has no rights, the only thing you should protect is its soul, and that's all religion...NO NO NO to religion in our government!

Could you explain why this is true?

That is why does being dependant on the mother disqualify the fetus from being human?

As I have said before it does not come down to religion, it comes down to science and human rights...

Restricting abortion doesn't violate the separation of church and state. It's an isolated issue.

Our society works better when abortion is legal, because there is an inelastic demand for abortions. When they are illegal these services are provided under the worst of conditions causing injury and death to the law breakers who still get the abortions.

I am really not sure about the steadfastness of the right to privacy defense. I would prefer that Roe v Wade stand up but it seems to be assailable constitutionally.

As to the fetus being alive. I hold some beliefs that fetus's are at least potential life and abortion is a moral quagmire. But a woman is still needed to risk her health and safety to carry that child to term. When we can remove that fetus at eight weeks and incubate it outside of the womb safely, than the fetus is legally independent of the mother. Until then, the mother should have choices about how to take care of herself.

I can assure you that scientifically the a fetus has more than potential for life, it is alive. I would highly encourage you to read over the link in the quote above (It's a long thread though ) I believe all the points you raised have been addressed. It should clear up at least some confusion.

What I was trying to say was...if Roe v. Wade was overturned, and abortions were made illegal, the woman's right to choose would not be taken away. Of course, I didn't mean that a woman's choice to have an abortion would not be taken away. I went further to explain this, stating that women would still have the choice of whether or not to get pregnant in the first place, if the proper precautions were taken. It's not exactly hard to do, and with the obvious consequences staring them in the face, I think women should learn to be a little more responsible. They would if the option of an abortion were nonexistent.



The separation of church and state holds little weight in this case, because this has little to do with religion. It does have to do with morals, which in this country, like it or not, were based on Judeo-Christian principles, concurrent with the ideals that our Founding Fathers had in creating this country. I mean, the law states that murder is illegal and punishable, but it isn't necessarily because it's in the Ten Commandments. The same would be true of abortion, if it were made illegal. Without some form of moral code, there would be no law or order.



Actually, the government does have the power. I will again use the murder example. Some people could, and do, try to justify it, saying that there are "right reasons" for committing murder, or a certain "maximum amount" of times that a person is allowed to commit murder. The government still denies people the "right" to commit murder, despite these arguments. They could do the same with abortion.

Conservative Teen - there is much in your post with which I agree, and I want to congratulate you on a well written post. However I would like to pose to you the following problem....not all pregnancies are preventable. The number of pregnancies that come about from rape and/or incest is alarmingly high. What do you say to the 13 year old girl who was raped by a family member?

In addition I would like to add something that perhaps some of you may not be aware of...or maybe you already are....and that is what constitutes the meaning of the phrase "abortion should be permitted when the health of the mother is at stake."

Most of us visualize this as something akin to a woman being rushed into the ER hemmoraging and the ER doctor says "This woman needs an abortion to save her life." - or some such similar scenario - where it is medically necessary to save her life.

At one point in my life I was the business administrator for a large inpatient/outpatient psychiatric facility. I observed it to work this way: A woman makes an appointment with a psychiatrist - a one time appointment. During this session she states to the doctor that if she is to carrry this pregnancy to term, she will harm herself; either suicide or something less. A report is written up and the woman takes this to the facility performing the abortion. That's all it takes.

In the over five years during which I was assocatied with the psychiatric practice, and we handled about 7-8 such cases per day, not one was ever questioned or refused. It became very much a pro forma matter.

At that time, might have changed since, the psychiatrist's fee for office visit and report was covered by MediCal and/or most private insurances.

I am not issuing here a condemnation of the practice only putting out the information for your consideration.

CTE- Morals go hand in hand with religion, so I don't understand why you think the church has nothing to do with peoples' stands on this issue, it has everything to do with them!

You sound a bit like a religious rite member, someone who feels his/her morals are the right ones, and everyone around, reguardless of their morals, should obey them...

I know this country way based on Christianity, and have no problem with "In God We Trust" on our currency, however above all it was founded on FREEDOM. If our founding fathers wanted to push their morals and religion on the people, they wouldn't have separated church and state, they would have established some dictatorship to do that. Sure they were Christians, no they didn't expect everyone else to be Christian. This moral code is the exact reason I am no longer a Republican!

Comparing abortion to murder in my opinion is comparing apples to oranges. If the mother wanted to really, she could choose to carry the baby to term and do harmful things to her body and kill it in other ways...She has complete control. Abortion is a victimless crime (unless you see it from a religious perspective!) and murder is not. Any law forbidding victimless crimes should be overturned. Don't mock me and say that it is like murder, it is nothing of the sort.

Thanks again for reminding me why I'm no longer a Republican!

Turnea, I used the wrong wording there, I hope you know what I mean...

This continues to confuse me. Why is the issue of whether of not a fetus is alive a religious one? It seems to me that question would be answered better by science.

I don't think that morals - whether in conjunction with abortion or not - is necessarily connected to religion.

Athiests have morals.

Basheva: Great Point, thanks

I think your example makes the point much more clearly.
Our laws are at least partially based on morals, religion aside.
So that's two down.

Abortion restrictions are:

Violation of right to privacy... not exactly.

Violation of separation of church and state... not exactly.

I still fail to see the supposed huge constitutional implications of Roe v Wade being overturned...

If you really want to know why abortion is really illegal from a law standpoint listen or look at what Alan Keyes says...very interesting.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23360

Darcaine

America is not a religious state. The decisions made are not dictated by a religious code. Believe me, if America made all of its decisions based on religion, this country would be run VERY differently. Some people may not agree with abortion due to their religious beliefs (some may not), but if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, it would not be in the name of religion and scarcely a result of religion at all.



Of course I believe that my morals are correct (as if there are great differences in morals, anyway) . After all, what good are morals if you don't stand by them? Therefore, I state my opinions based on my morals, which happen to be based upon my Christian faith. Because this is an opinion board, I am stating my opinion in the manner that comes naturally to me. I'm not preaching, however...quoting Bible verses or even mentioning Jesus. So, don't get on me about that.



Absolutely, America was based on freedom, and in case you haven't realized it, Americans enjoy the most freedoms today of any people on Earth. However, there are some "freedoms" that must be taken away in order to protect other people from losing the ability to exercise their own freedoms. Abortion is denying someone their right to life, even if they aren't yet able to enjoy it fully on their own or even realize that they have it. You, like many other people, have misinterpreted separation of church and state. In pre-American England, people were forced to become members of the Church of England. If they refused, they were oppressed or even worse. Separation of church and state is exactly that, separation of CHURCH and state, not RELIGION and state. It was created to avoid another situation like that of the Church of England. Read some of the documents of the period, and you'll see how the Founders tried to keep religion and government INTERTWINED. Again, America is not a religious state, trying to bring people to a certain religion, but rather a country that was founded on religious principles, used as a means to create an effective law to guide a society to success. It has worked thus far...



Regrettably so, but these children could still be born and adopted. If the 13-year-old girl, like I said before, were threatened by giving birth to the child, then an abortion would be understandable. But, otherwise, the child should be born and, at least, given a chance at life. Who are we to deny anyone so innocent and helpless the chance to live? Some people would argue that these kids would end up living terrible lives, and that is quite possible. Let's just say that they'll have a better chance to beat those odds if they are born than if they are simply tossed aside...

This is exactly where I think you're wrong. You shouldn't push your beliefs on anyone or expect anyone to follow you with what you believe in.

Church and religion...Oh, let's twist those words! Apparently you're more "enlightened" than I when it comes to the intentions of the founding fathers somehow.

Forced to become members of the church? Then with the same word twisting perhaps they wanted American citizens to be "forced to become members of the religion".

I think you're 100% wrong. If the founding fathers wanted this country to be ruled by Christianity they would have made that clear; they did anything but that.

If Roe v Wade is overturned, family planning will not go away. Emphasis will be placed on more reliable contraception and early abortive techniques (morning after pill and the such).

Will the intimidating demonstrations go away too? Or will doctors be murdered and clinics bombed for the "cause"? Perhaps we will see other techniques too, such as stealing supplies of drugs and burning them in the streets.

When I look at who makes the moral errors, they are not the women planning their families. Lord save us from your wild dogs with a cause.

I'm not pushing anything on anyone. Perhaps if you had read (or considered) what I wrote a little more closely, you would know that I said that I was only stating my opinion, as is customary on an opinion board (see America's Debate Welcome). You can take it for what it is worth, but don't try and tell me that I was telling anyone to believe how I believe or do as I would do.



The things I said about the differences between church and religion, and the Founding Father's intentions on them, were not just spontaneous musings of a so-called "enlightenment." They are observances of what little we have left of the Founding Fathers' life work, their penning, much of which indicates that they governed their lives by their religion, and genuinely aimed to do the same with the New Nation. Look at the Declaration of Independence, and note how Thomas Jefferson acknowledges Freedom as a God-ordained gift that had been denied the people in Britain. Look at our National Motto, the third verse of our National Anthem, and pieces of George Washington's farewell address. You will see that this nation was founded with religion in mind, to be included as a part of the foundation of a nation that was to become the greatest in the world. That's what I was trying to say, not that religion is (or should be) the United States' M.O., nor that people have to be (or even should be) Christian simply because the nation was partly founded on it.



They didn't want this country to be RULED by Christianity, nor was it, nor is it. The Founding Fathers, however, did intend to include religion in the framework for our New Nation.



I believe there is a saying that goes "If you fail to plan, than you plan to fail". The significance to this? If you don't do your planning ahead of time (i.e., if you don't take the necessary precautions required to avoid getting pregnant), then you will end up facing the consequences later on (i.e., you will bear a child). There's nothing wrong with planning families, and in fact it is encouraged, but the planning comes before the action in most cases (or at least that is how it happens with successful outcomes ). And while I don't commend or even empathize with these extremists who kill abortion-performing doctors and perform other heinous acts of the same type, at least their heads are in the right place, unlike some people .

Well then, if it wasn't intended to be ruled by Christianity, why would we abolish abortion in the name of Christianity? You seem to be confused about what I'm saying.

If the founding fathers were so adament about including religion, then why did they leave England in the first place?

And yes, I feel you were suggesting in a previous post that your morals or religion should be the ruling moral/religious code. You said something like "without morals" this country would go the wrong way...Well that sounds like pushing faith on others to me!

Morals and faith don't always go together. One can have morals and be an athiest. One can have faith and be amoral.




The Founding Fathers did not leave England to escape religion - they left England to practice their own religion.

If one has a view that is anti-abortion - that doesn't necessarily mean that view is based on a religious faith. One could be anti-abortion and be an athiest.

It doesn't really matter what the founding fathers wanted. Killing is wrong, you just can't make it right.

Madtown

What I find amusing is people who don't believe in abortions. They think abortion is wrong. It is murder. It is killing a human. I am not going into whether I am for abortion or not. What I find interesting is these people believe it is murder yet they have killed doctors, bombed abortion clinics where many people could be killed and they don't consider that murder?????

CTE said:


How are their heads in the right place? By taking the law into their own hands? You don't approve, but their thinking is correct? Is it because they are "preventing" more deaths by killing the doctor? My understanding of morality doesn't include morals that are flexible to the extent of justifying immoral acts. Thou shalt not kill? Anyone remember that old ditty? Sure, the lyrics are easy to forget, but it's a great tune.

There is no doubt that a few anti-abortion people have done that. But the overwhelming majority of anti-abortion people have not done that, believe it is absolutely and positively completely wrong. It's murder in every sense of the word - and unforgiveable.

But the despicable acts of a very few shouldn't condemn the principle of being against abortion for the many.

Normally I sidestep this issue but, if someone really believes an abortion doctor is a "mass murderer". Don't you think it's reasonable to think someone would sacrifice themselves to eliminate this person? I mean it's 2 sides of a coin. One side believes until that baby is out of the womb and given a name it's a piece of hamburger. The other side believes right after sex there is person there. I mean there has to be a middle ground somewhere. I have to belive that after a certain point in this "childs" life that it MUST have rights. Just because one cannot comprehend or speak does that deny someone a voice? Roe vs Wade probably has to be biggest killer of all time. So many abortions, no accountability.



Yes, but you have to think like what they are thinking. That's a human life there. I guess I would put it to you this way. Looking at lets say a WW2 German concentration camp. Would you allow these people to continue to kill all these people OR would you kill the few people causing all the death. BTW..Thou shalt not kill is mistranslated. It's more like thou shalt not murder. Something to ponder.

Darcaine