Because it is bad law. The "right" of women to abort is horribly sad, and was very close to being passed in most all of the States over time when the SCOTUS stepped in it and short circuited what should have been a normal process. Instead it has become an issue that has festered on the body politic for decades. Not to mention the aborted but I believe there are a number of dead adults who would otherwise be alive today where it not for that ruling. Had the SCOTUS not ursurped constitutional authority it didn't have, today most if not all States would be exactly where they are now without grounds to be challenged. Perhaps a couple conservative states in the north might have held on to antiquarian views just like they did slavery but its likely neighboring states would have offered 'quicky abortions' to the general population just like only Nevada offered 'quickly divorced' to the elite even more decades ago and by the same right that the SCOTUS eliminated in Roe-v-Wade. If the SCOTUS had ruled on women voting the way it did on the abortion issue we would still be fighting that one as well.35 responses total.
Unfortunately, if Roe vs Wade were overturned now, it would be seen as a rejection of the right to abort. I think the result would be the immediate passage of laws strictly limiting, and at least a few out right banning, abortion. It would take several years, possibly decades, to remove those laws. After all, that is exactly what is happening right now: legislatures continue to pass laws strictly limiting abortion. The _only_ reason they don't ban it out right is Roe vs. Wade. It would be a very simple matter for the legislatures to do exactly the opposite and enact laws that expanded Roe vs. Wade, but they aren't.
What Joe said.
Well said pvn. Abortion is murder ...pure and simple. A women has her choice in the moment she chooses to spread her legs. That's the only "woman's right to choose" that I support. We need to enact laws that protect the rights of unborn children.
What about women who are raped? Most people i know who reject abortion are men...most legislators (conservative or otherwise) are men...more Southern legislators are men...go figure.
re#1: Isn't that exactly the rights of a State if they so choose to do? Otherwise what use is State governments in the first place, just have all law passed and prosecuted on a Federal level. On the contrary, I suspect if Roe-V-Wade were repealed the reaction of State governments would reflect the views of their respective citizens which is what was intended when the Constitution was enacted. Where in your view does the pressure to enact anti-abortion law come from? The citizens? re#2: I think not. I suspect the reaction of State's legislators would be to individually enact either enabling legislation preserving the status quo or to enact prohibition which would be quickly overturned. My point is that Roe-V-Wade has purpetuated a debate that should have been over long ago. Nobody today seriously challenges a black person's or a woman's right to vote. re#3: No. Abortion is a reasonably safe medical procedure with horrible emotional consequences in many cases. Fetuses don't vote and therefor are not citizens so have no rights so abortion is not murder. re#4: A recent study showed that the majority of women opposed abortion. I suspect this is an artifact of the methodology or it may simply be that women have an emotional attraction for children in general where as men generally have a sexual attraction towards women. What about women who are raped? Its a crime in the general catagory of assault and battery so what? What, you want rapists to pay child support?
You argue that if the Roe vs Wade decision did not exist we would still be where we are today: abortion largely available. Perhaps, if the decision had not been made and the opinions deriving from it did not exist, the laws prohibiting abortion would have been repealed. You extend that, in #0, to say that Roe vs Wade should be overturned to allow the legislatures to do what they should have done and would have done. You then argue that the legislatures will act quickly to return us to our current state of abortion being largely available. I think you are short-sighted. As you note, there is wide-spread opposition to abortion. The legislatures will react to that oppositon WHICH WILL NOT DISAPPEAR if abortion is banned. I think it will take AT LEAST two decades to recover from overturning Roe vs Wade.
Roe-V-Wade was ruled by SCOTUS at a time long ago where most States were in the process of enacting State legislation allowing for the modern medical procedure. It was the '70s which was rather more than two decades ago. In my humble opinion it should have been over and done with way back then. Instead RvW has allowed the arguement to fester on to this day. The Roe of RvW has now come out calling for the repeal which wouldn't even be on the radar scope had the legal process not been subverted by that SCOTUS at the time. The USA is a republic, not a democracy and the fact that the majority of women might appear to hold one view is moderated by another study which rank-orders issues shows that abortion is rather low on the list.
"No. Abortion is a reasonably safe medical procedure with horrible emotional consequences in many cases. Fetuses don't vote and therefor are not citizens so have no rights so abortion is not murder." According to this faulty reasoning any child who doesn't vote is without rights. My daughter doesn't vote yet. She is a minor but she still has rights. As for citizenship being a prerequisite for having rights...Ha We give every third world indigent that floats over here on an inner-tube rights. Predecent has already been established in courts concerning unborn babies. If you murder a women carrying a child in her womb you are charged with two murders. As for the rape scenario I hear that argument all the time. It's usually coupled with "what if the life of the mother is at stake" Both of those situations are rare. Abortion on the otherhand isn't rare. It has taken more lives than have been lost in all the wars America has ever fought. It IS murder.
If you're against abortion, why not make birth control free and easily available? Oh, but I forgot; the same people who are against abortion are against birth control, as well. What these people are really against is SEX.
Some of them. But not all of them. Don't go underestimating people just because you disagree with them.
Re #5: Most women may say they wouldn't personally get an abortion, but
survey results consistently show that the majority favors abortion
remaining legal.
Re #9: Life begins at erection.
Roe vs Wade was inevitable at about the time it occurred. The issue was on its way to the Supreme Court one way or another. The decision wasn't inevitable, however. That it came out the way it did was, of course, a coincidence of the issue and the evolution of the court coming together to yield that decision. Speculation now on where we would be without Roe Bs Wade or an equivalent ruling at about that time is just that: speculation. I can see several courses history could have taken, depending on other events that have not occurred but could have. I like to think that the tendency of our nation has been toward increased individual freedom - but we certainly see that that can have up and downs, with some down occurring right now. In any case, I laugh at those that rant that abortion is "murder", because, course, it is. But so what? So is killing in war, or in self defense, or in the death penalty, all forms of currently santioned murder. If on the other hand you want to reserve the term "murder" for illegal killing, then abortion is by defintion not murder, as it is sanctioned. It is in my opinion an inalienable right that women should have, and were denied for too long, to control their own bodies over a sufficient period for them to make a decision about continuing a pregnancy. It is *not* as simple as women refusing men's sexual overtures, as men have had immense control over women in the past (and present), physically, financially and emotionally; control that women have not had over men.
Re #5 para 1: No, if R v. W were repealed, the state governments would take action reflecting the most vocal and organized faction of the population, namely that which is dissatisfied with the status quo. The majority of the people might not want to change anything, but there are many examples of extremist pressure groups giving the electorate something that they didn't want and have to take action to repeal (see Kansas state education standards, reversed by voter outrage over the right-wing stealth campaign).
If Roe-v-Wade were repealed at the federal level and thrown back to the States they would most likely pass relevent law. The debate would be over just as it would have been three decades or so ago if the SCOTUS hadn't seen fit to legislate instead of act as it was originally designed.
If the abortion issue were thrown back to the states, then in two generations, tops, the US would be overrun by trailer trash. I personally think that would be a good thing, but that might be a minority opinion here.
And Mensans overrunning the US would be better???
Abortions have always been available and would still have been available without Roe vs Wade. The big difference is whether they are safe for the woman or not. I thought the Supreme Court did act as they were designed to act in Roe vs Wade. Individual freedoms are ensconced in the Constitution, even if not equally applied in reality. The right of a woman to control her own body, a right that men enjoy, is as central to our society as is a woman's right to vote (even if we had to amend to Constitution to create that right).
What I see as happening if Roe v. Wade was overturned: the number of
fatalities from back-alley and illegal out-of-state abortions would invariably
rise. Women's social status would fall as fewer women are able to maintain
careers. Single motherhood would rise. The lives of the rich would remain
more or less the same.
I forget what statistic supported the claim, if any, but for a while there back in the '70s black militants were calling Roe v. Wade genocide. I think that ended the same time as the global cooling scare.
"Legalized suicide" doesn't have the same rhetorical bite now does it?
Considering that most state legislatures have been pandering to the right by passing laws limiting abortion, I have no doubts that it'd be completely outlawed if Roe v. Wade were overturned. State legislatures tend to react to their most vocal constituants and favor religious issues, even if those people are a minority. Already in many states we have a situation where abortion is legal but nearly impossible to get, due to a combination of state regulations and intimidation by violent protesters.
re: "#22 (gull): ... I have no doubts that it'd be completely outlawed if Roe v. Wade were overturned." Although, if you were better informed, you might have them.
I doubt it. Pro-choice activists aren't very active because what they want is essentially the status quo. If Roe vs. Wade falls, there would be a big pro-choice backlash. How big? I don't know.
This response has been erased.
Let's found a pro-choice faith and apply for federal funding for
faith-based charities to help poor women get abortion counseling.
This response has been erased.
Moonie.
No, Unitarianism is too wishy-washy. You'd need a religion where abortion is penance, a sacrifice one makes when one hasn't been productive enough to support a(nother) child or when God gives you a test by e.g. giving you a fetus with Down's or some other disorder that should not be inflicted on a thinking, feeling being. Call it the Church of Sanger. Education and contraception would be sacraments, of course; making one's self worthy and keeping out of trouble would be tenets. Sinful people have houses full of ill-clothed kids that they never read to, and don't teach them that disease comes from microbes and that people really did walk on the Moon. Virtuous people have houses full of books, and both houses and books are in top shape. Reading the newspaper is a mitzvah, watching television is a sin, reading to children is a sacrament. Learning biology and calculus are mitzvahs, playing the lottery or with "crystals" are sins. Ye gods, I think you could actually make this work. There is enough self-sacrifice inherent in the concept to make it attractive to a certain group that needs that. Done right, it could out-compete Scientology without being at all odious.
"...without being at all odious." Heh. By the sound of it, it is DESIGNED to be odious, at least to those whose views differ from yours.
Re #30: Well, of course. People who worship ignorance and canonize the stupid deserve to be scandalized every waking moment. If they share any intellectual heritage with Calvinists they'll eventually realize that the people who so outrage them are doing better than they are and thus must be more favored by God... a moment which will be noted with much hilarity by the Sangers. Hmmm. That's one thing that's missing from the Book of Sanger: humor. Gotta find a way to put some silliness in there somewhere. Probably have to hide it a bit so that the folks who can't stand humor don't feel obligated to take notice and thus can continue to take part in good conscience, but it oughtta be there.
Trust us, russ, there's plenty of humor there already.
Oh, I see plenty... but it's gotta be the right kind, namely fun for the participants rather than fun at their expense.
Fascism, anyone?
http://www.powersportsnetwork.com/accessoriesdetail/product=72793/levelcode =70 52/catalog=874/Honda+Helmets/NOLAN+GREX+G06+Street/accessories72793.htm
You have several choices: