One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Main
Roe v Wade
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21 next>>
Jul 9, 2018 11:34:06   #
ron vrooman
 
When a private female upon the land decides she does not wish to carry a pregnancy to term, who, what, where, how does anyone in Our Constitutional Republic form of government have jurisdiction over her decision??

Can we keep this to lawful and without conjecture, emotion, this is a private being making a decision none can gainsay her.

when I private member of we the people decides to eliminate from their body that is it.

| Reply
Jul 9, 2018 11:47:01   #
Kevyn (a regular here)
 
ron vrooman wrote:
When a private female upon the land decides she does not wish to carry a pregnancy to term, who, what, where, how does anyone in Our Constitutional Republic form of government have jurisdiction over her decision??

Can we keep this to lawful and without conjecture, emotion, this is a private being making a decision none can gainsay her.

when I private member of we the people decides to eliminate from their body that is it.

This statement makes more sense than any of your posts. Men should have no influence over a woman’s reproductive choices it is hers and hers alone.

| Reply
Jul 9, 2018 11:50:37   #
TrueAmerican (a regular here)
 
ron vrooman wrote:
When a private female upon the land decides she does not wish to carry a pregnancy to term, who, what, where, how does anyone in Our Constitutional Republic form of government have jurisdiction over her decision??

Can we keep this to lawful and without conjecture, emotion, this is a private being making a decision none can gainsay her.

when I private member of we the people decides to eliminate from their body that is it.


If she does not wish to practice protection against pregnancy, and becomes pregnant, and decides to abort, and does so as soon as possible after learning she is pregnant, then I have no problem with it, as long as she and her playmate pay for it themselves, and not require taxpayers to do so through an organization such as planned parenthood (the irony in the name always sickens me). I did not participate in the act of creating the pregnancy, and for the life of me do not why myself or any other taxpayer shold help pay for said abortion. It's like the old sayin goes "you gotta pay to play" Nuff said !!!!!!

| Reply
Jul 9, 2018 11:53:04   #
nwtk2007 (a regular here)
 
ron vrooman wrote:
When a private female upon the land decides she does not wish to carry a pregnancy to term, who, what, where, how does anyone in Our Constitutional Republic form of government have jurisdiction over her decision??

Can we keep this to lawful and without conjecture, emotion, this is a private being making a decision none can gainsay her.

when I private member of we the people decides to eliminate from their body that is it.


Not the Fed gov doesna't have any jurisdiction over her decision. But the state might.

| Reply
Jul 9, 2018 11:53:07   #
bmac32 (a regular here)
 
No abortion should ever be used as birth control, ever!



Kevyn wrote:
This statement makes more sense than any of your posts. Men should have no influence over a woman’s reproductive choices it is hers and hers alone.

| Reply
Jul 9, 2018 11:56:05   #
EL (a regular here)
 
bmac32 wrote:
No abortion should ever be used as birth control, ever!


A woman has no control over her life is she gets pregnant when she doesn't want to.

| Reply
Jul 9, 2018 12:16:35   #
bmac32 (a regular here)
 
If her life is in danger, if it's rape or incest and maybe the child has little chance of living. Don't believe Roe VS Wade will ever come into play, democrat's are ticked they've lost control.



EL wrote:
A woman has no control over her life is she gets pregnant when she doesn't want to.

| Reply
Jul 9, 2018 12:31:33   #
fredlott63
 
If I, as a private citizen, want to shoot you in the head, should the government interfere? Abortion is murder.

| Reply
Jul 9, 2018 12:36:00   #
lindajoy (a regular here)
 
ron vrooman wrote:
When a private female upon the land decides she does not wish to carry a pregnancy to term, who, what, where, how does anyone in Our Constitutional Republic form of government have jurisdiction over her decision??

Can we keep this to lawful and without conjecture, emotion, this is a private being making a decision none can gainsay her.

when I private member of we the people decides to eliminate from their body that is it.


When it was originally brought before the SCOTUS and they ruled, now government has a say so...

| Reply
Jul 9, 2018 12:44:59   #
EmilyD (a regular here)
 
bmac32 wrote:
No abortion should ever be used as birth control, ever!


And that is the most important thing of what is wrong with abortion - it is used as birth control! There are many ways to prevent pregnancy (the one that is 100% foolproof is not having sex). Since our technology has discovered that it can remove a fetus from a womb safely, abortion has skyrocketed. In 2014, 652,639 induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. That's 54,300+ per month...and that was 4 years ago. No one can tell me that all of those abortions are a "mistake" because other forms of birth control didn't work. A woman has a choice about her own life, for sure, but once she begins another life, THAT person should also have a choice, or have representation of a choice, to live.

| Reply
Jul 9, 2018 12:47:56   #
ron vrooman
 
Agreed However, women have no voice in an individuals rights either.

I do take exception to your first statement. I challenge you to provide proof of that statement.

Here is an example: by act of Congress 1952 Muslims are banned from The United States of America and rightly so. Their geopolitical manifesto the koran is not compatible with our Constitutional Republic form of government. Therefore,$$ stole 2.6 billion from the VA to import muslims unlawfully.

Kevyn wrote:
This statement makes more sense than any of your posts. Men should have no influence over a woman’s reproductive choices it is hers and hers alone.

| Reply
Jul 9, 2018 12:57:21   #
JoyV (a regular here)
 
ron vrooman wrote:
When a private female upon the land decides she does not wish to carry a pregnancy to term, who, what, where, how does anyone in Our Constitutional Republic form of government have jurisdiction over her decision??

Can we keep this to lawful and without conjecture, emotion, this is a private being making a decision none can gainsay her.

when I private member of we the people decides to eliminate from their body that is it.


Yes. A woman has the right to decide whether or not to have a child. Once that decision is made, it is her responsibility to see to the child's needs, or see that the child is given to someone else who will do so. She should not have the right to change her mind by eliminating the child from her body once the child exists. The choice was already made before she got pregnant. She CHOSE to engage in pregnancy causing activity without preventing herself getting pregnant (unless she was raped). That choice was hers to make and she made it. One made she could still change her mind on raising a child, but should not have the right to decide on whether or not that child has the right to live. She chose to start a baby inside her body, by not preventing it. That was her choice. To end its life is no different than ending its life after birth. Would you feel the same about a private individual who decides to eliminate a baby after 11 months from the start of her pregnancy? No one should force her to raise a child she does not want. She could choose not to raise a child by giving it up for adopting. But should her right to live her life without being saddled by a child mean she should be legally allowed to commit infanticide? Now maybe some feel infanticide should be legal. Aborting an unborn baby is also infanticide which is legal because of the age of the infant, counting from the start of pregnancy.

| Reply
Jul 9, 2018 13:02:19   #
Blade_Runner (a regular here)
 
Kevyn wrote:
This statement makes more sense than any of your posts. Men should have no influence over a woman’s reproductive choices it is hers and hers alone.
That's a stupid thing to say. A woman needs a man to reproduce. Moreover, when it comes to aborting a baby, liberals pose the argument that women have the right to control her body, but they have no problem with women who are unable to control their bodies while engaging the act that impregnates them.

If men should have no influence over a woman's reproductive choices, then men who have nothing to do with a woman's reproductive choice should not be obligated to pick up the tab for her abortion.

The three fundamental problems with Roe v. Wade

January 20, 2017

By

Paul Stark

On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled that abortion must be permitted for any reason before fetal viability—and that it must be permitted for "health" reasons, broadly defined in Doe (such that they encompass virtually any reason), all the way until birth. Roe effectively legalized abortion-on-demand nationwide.

The New York Times proclaimed the verdict "a historic resolution of a fiercely controversial issue." But now, 44 years later, Roe has yet to "resolve" anything. And it never will. Three fundamental problems will continue to plague the Court and its abortion jurisprudence until the day when, finally, Roe is overturned.

Unjust

First, and most importantly, the outcome of Roe is harmful and unjust. Why? The facts of embryology show that the human embryo or fetus (the being whose life is ended in abortion) is a distinct and living human organism at the earliest stages of development. "Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote," explains a leading embryology textbook. "This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Justice requires that the law protect the equal dignity and basic rights of every member of the human family—irrespective of age, size, ability, dependency, and the desires and decisions of others. This principle of human equality, affirmed in the Declaration of Independence and the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the moral core of western civilization. But the Roe Court ruled, to the contrary, that a particular class of innocent human beings (the unborn) must be excluded from the protection of the law and allowed to be dismembered and killed at the discretion of others. "The right created by the Supreme Court in Roe," observes University of St. Thomas law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, "is a constitutional right of some human beings to kill other human beings."

After Roe, the incidence of abortion rose dramatically, quickly topping one million abortions per year and peaking at 1.6 million in 1990 before gradually declining to just under one million in 2014 (the latest year for which complete estimates are available). Under the Roe regime, abortion is the leading cause of human death. More than 59 million human beings have now been legally killed. And abortion has detrimentally impacted the health and well-being of many women (and men). The gravity and scale of this injustice exceed that of any other issue or concern in American society today.

Unconstitutional

The second problem with Roe is that it is an epic constitutional mistake. Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinion claimed that the "right of privacy" found in the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is "broad enough to encompass" a fundamental right to abortion. There is no reason to think that's true.

"What is frightening about Roe," noted the eminent constitutional scholar and Yale law professor John Hart Ely (who personally supported legalized abortion), "is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure. … It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

Indeed, "[a]s a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method," writes Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who is "utterly committed" to legalized abortion, "Roe borders on the indefensible. ... Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the … years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."

But Roe is even more ridiculous than most observers realize. The American people adopted the Fourteenth Amendment during an era in which those same American people enacted numerous state laws with the primary purpose of protecting unborn children from abortion. A century later, Roe ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow prevents Americans from doing what the ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment actually did. "To reach its result," Justice William Rehnquist quipped in his dissenting opinion, "the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment."

That's absurd. "The only conclusion possible from this history," Rehnquist explained, "is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

Undemocratic

Third, Roe is undemocratic. Roe and Doe v. Bolton together struck down the democratically decided abortion laws of all 50 states and replaced them with a nationwide policy of abortion-for-any-reason, whether the people like it or not. Of course, the Court may properly invalidate statutes that are inconsistent with the Constitution (which is the highest law). But Roe lacked any such justification.

Justice Byron White, a dissenter in Roe, explained the problem in his dissent in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. "[T]he Constitution itself is ordained and established by the people of the United States," he wrote. "[D]ecisions that find in the Constitution principles or values that cannot fairly be read into that document usurp the people's authority, for such decisions represent choices that the people have never made, and that they cannot disavow through corrective legislation." Roe defied the Constitution and other laws that the American people agreed upon—and imposed the will of the unelected Court instead.

The radical (and frequently unrecognized or misreported) scope of the Roe regime, moreover, was not and has never been consistent with public opinion, which favors substantial legal limits on abortion. Millions and millions of Americans disagree with the abortion policy the Court invented. They want to have a say. The Court decided they could have none.

Why Roe will fall

So these are the three fundamental and intractable problems with Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court abused the Constitution to usurp the authority of the people by imposing an unjust policy with morally disastrous results. Unjust. Unconstitutional. Undemocratic.

Many abortion defenders want and expect Roe to last forever. It will not. "[A] bad decision is a bad decision," concedes Richard Cohen, a supporter of abortion, in the Washington Post. "If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument—but a bit of our soul as well."

It's true that a legal embarrassment, like Roe, can sometimes survive long-term. But not when it produces an atrocious outcome that disenfranchises millions of compassionate Americans who will not rest, and will never rest, while the Court's usurpation remains in effect.

Sooner or later—hopefully sooner—Roe v. Wade will fall.

| Reply
Jul 9, 2018 13:09:53   #
JoyV (a regular here)
 
EL wrote:
A woman has no control over her life is she gets pregnant when she doesn't want to.


Where do you live that women have no control over whether or not they can get pregnant? Is rape legal where you live? Yes, when you make a choice it either opens new doors for other choices, or closes doors to other choices. This is the same for many choices, not just pregnancy. The bigger the choice, the bigger the impact on other choices.

| Reply
Jul 9, 2018 13:13:37   #
EmilyD (a regular here)
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
That's a stupid thing to say. A woman needs a man to reproduce. Moreover, when it comes to aborting a baby, liberals pose the argument that women have the right to control her body, but they have no problem with women who are unable to control their bodies while engaging the act that impregnates them.

If men should have no influence over a woman's reproductive choices, then men who have nothing to do with a woman's reproductive choice should not be obligated to pick up the tab for her abortion.

The three fundamental problems with Roe v. Wade

January 20, 2017

By

Paul Stark

On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled that abortion must be permitted for any reason before fetal viability—and that it must be permitted for "health" reasons, broadly defined in Doe (such that they encompass virtually any reason), all the way until birth. Roe effectively legalized abortion-on-demand nationwide.

The New York Times proclaimed the verdict "a historic resolution of a fiercely controversial issue." But now, 44 years later, Roe has yet to "resolve" anything. And it never will. Three fundamental problems will continue to plague the Court and its abortion jurisprudence until the day when, finally, Roe is overturned.

Unjust

First, and most importantly, the outcome of Roe is harmful and unjust. Why? The facts of embryology show that the human embryo or fetus (the being whose life is ended in abortion) is a distinct and living human organism at the earliest stages of development. "Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote," explains a leading embryology textbook. "This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Justice requires that the law protect the equal dignity and basic rights of every member of the human family—irrespective of age, size, ability, dependency, and the desires and decisions of others. This principle of human equality, affirmed in the Declaration of Independence and the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the moral core of western civilization. But the Roe Court ruled, to the contrary, that a particular class of innocent human beings (the unborn) must be excluded from the protection of the law and allowed to be dismembered and killed at the discretion of others. "The right created by the Supreme Court in Roe," observes University of St. Thomas law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, "is a constitutional right of some human beings to kill other human beings."

After Roe, the incidence of abortion rose dramatically, quickly topping one million abortions per year and peaking at 1.6 million in 1990 before gradually declining to just under one million in 2014 (the latest year for which complete estimates are available). Under the Roe regime, abortion is the leading cause of human death. More than 59 million human beings have now been legally killed. And abortion has detrimentally impacted the health and well-being of many women (and men). The gravity and scale of this injustice exceed that of any other issue or concern in American society today.

Unconstitutional

The second problem with Roe is that it is an epic constitutional mistake. Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinion claimed that the "right of privacy" found in the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is "broad enough to encompass" a fundamental right to abortion. There is no reason to think that's true.

"What is frightening about Roe," noted the eminent constitutional scholar and Yale law professor John Hart Ely (who personally supported legalized abortion), "is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure. … It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

Indeed, "[a]s a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method," writes Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who is "utterly committed" to legalized abortion, "Roe borders on the indefensible. ... Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the … years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."

But Roe is even more ridiculous than most observers realize. The American people adopted the Fourteenth Amendment during an era in which those same American people enacted numerous state laws with the primary purpose of protecting unborn children from abortion. A century later, Roe ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow prevents Americans from doing what the ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment actually did. "To reach its result," Justice William Rehnquist quipped in his dissenting opinion, "the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment."

That's absurd. "The only conclusion possible from this history," Rehnquist explained, "is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

Undemocratic

Third, Roe is undemocratic. Roe and Doe v. Bolton together struck down the democratically decided abortion laws of all 50 states and replaced them with a nationwide policy of abortion-for-any-reason, whether the people like it or not. Of course, the Court may properly invalidate statutes that are inconsistent with the Constitution (which is the highest law). But Roe lacked any such justification.

Justice Byron White, a dissenter in Roe, explained the problem in his dissent in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. "[T]he Constitution itself is ordained and established by the people of the United States," he wrote. "[D]ecisions that find in the Constitution principles or values that cannot fairly be read into that document usurp the people's authority, for such decisions represent choices that the people have never made, and that they cannot disavow through corrective legislation." Roe defied the Constitution and other laws that the American people agreed upon—and imposed the will of the unelected Court instead.

The radical (and frequently unrecognized or misreported) scope of the Roe regime, moreover, was not and has never been consistent with public opinion, which favors substantial legal limits on abortion. Millions and millions of Americans disagree with the abortion policy the Court invented. They want to have a say. The Court decided they could have none.

Why Roe will fall

So these are the three fundamental and intractable problems with Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court abused the Constitution to usurp the authority of the people by imposing an unjust policy with morally disastrous results. Unjust. Unconstitutional. Undemocratic.

Many abortion defenders want and expect Roe to last forever. It will not. "[A] bad decision is a bad decision," concedes Richard Cohen, a supporter of abortion, in the Washington Post. "If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument—but a bit of our soul as well."

It's true that a legal embarrassment, like Roe, can sometimes survive long-term. But not when it produces an atrocious outcome that disenfranchises millions of compassionate Americans who will not rest, and will never rest, while the Court's usurpation remains in effect.

Sooner or later—hopefully sooner—Roe v. Wade will fall.
That's a stupid thing to say. A woman needs a man ... (show quote)


An interesting sidenote is that Norma McCorvey (alias: Jane Roe) carried her baby to term and gave it up for adoption.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2018 IDF International Technologies, Inc.