Aftermath of Abortion

I would like to see numbers on that before I would believe it. Huge swaths of religious people oppose sex education as evidenced by the deficiency in such education across the length and breadth of our country. There isn't even a remote chance that Congress would pass a law mandating effective sex education whereas we did have a partial-birth abortion ban pass handily before being struck down by the USSC.

I agree that both sides have extremists, but the ones opposing sex education are a FAR bigger group than the ones against banning late-term abortions. I would bet just about anything, but would be happy to revise my views if some actual numbers came up.

Education will not catch all unwanted pregnancies, but it will reduce them dramatically. If those women chose to have abortions, that would continue to be their choice. The real point is that education and contraception would reduce abortions more than a legislative ban on abortion, but more on that below.

Actually, the "Drug War/Prohibition argument" is pretty valid here with the existance of RDU-486. It is as uncontrollable as cocaine, heroin, MDMA, or mar1juana in the presence of a legislative ban. We don't see much illicit traffic of said drug now since abortion is legal and regulated. Imagine a world where the drug dealers also controlled the supply of that drug. We would not be able to restrict abortions by young people (parental notification) or by length of term at all because women would just take the abortion pill.

Were the fetus capable of speech, I would support your argument. Keep in mind I am only arguing for keeping abortion legal during the first trimester. Vocal cords are in the distant future at 12 weeks.

Exactly. This is the reason we cannot let you create your legislation, because you don't give a rat's ass about the rights of an already living, breathing human being, instead giving preference to a mass of cells that is nowhere NEAR human in the minds of a great deal of Americans.

I will when you do.

The mother is the voice for the "little one" until such a time as it has its own.

September 21

 

A law banning abortion would not be "saving babies lives" either. It will just make it criminal to have an abortion. Abortions will still happen and with the advent of RDU-486, I suspect that abortion rates will stay flat, but unfortunately we will have no way to compare rates since the abortions will all be done in the black market, not regulated in the least.

Your "solution" will only cause a host of problems we have already experienced (in the days before Roe) as well as many that are unforeseen due to the advent of RDU-486.

 

Firstly, here is the opening paragraph:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Here are the references in the ammendments:
Article V says a person can't self-incriminate or be deprived of liberty w/out due process
Article XIV says the States should not deprive any person of liberty.

Article XIV clearly mentions that the states shall not deprive any person of Liberty.

Since the government telling people what they can/cannot do with there own body clearly represents undue governmental control (see definition of Liberty), the states do NOT have the right to legislate the matter.

The courts don't make law...ONLY the legislative branch has the authority to make law (see Article I Section 8 Clause 18). Since Roe V Wade was a court case, by definition, it isn't law. Am I missing something? They can overturn law but they can't make it. The constitution clearly states ONLY the legilslative branch has the authority to pass laws.

Besides, you CAN ignore it because the matter doesn't concern you. It comes down to what a woman choses to do with her own body and you or the government should have little to no say in it.

Please tone down your rhetoric. I'm simply trying to illustrate a point using an obviously simple example.

I've read the constitution. I admit I haven't read Roe V Wade but even if I had, that is irrelevant. The courts made a judgement based on constitutional principals (which is their job). Its done. I'll go read Roe V Wade now, if I can find it. You better hope they don't make mention of "Liberty" in their judgement or that will further prove my point.

 

You're quoting the 10th Ammendment but forgetting the 9th which says that there are other rights out there besides the ones specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Murder has primarily been considered a state law and the Constitution is silent about it specifically. The Roe ruling goes to a derived Constitutional principle so under equal protection as long as their is a Constitutional issue of a right to privacy it couldn't be thrown back to the states.

 

Good points. There are already cases of charging women who use drugs or drink with child abuse so that slippery slope already has started. As I've said repeatedly the situation is very muddled about whether a fetus is a person and until that is resolved we will continue to consider a fetus a person for criminal prosecution but not for the purpose of abortion.

As I see it there are two hurdles that I think the pro-life side need to address.

1. Getting the definition of personhood moved to conception. If this was done it would take care of almost all pro-life issues in regard to embryos. Abortion, stem cells and cloning since under the embryo's own right to privacy you couldn't experiment on it or harvest it for stem cells without its consent.

2. That the right to life of the embryo/fetus takes precedence over the woman's right to privacy (the use of her own body.)

 

Ok, I just started reading Roe and the very first opinion has already verified EXACTLY what I've been saying all along. A law that bans abortion jeapordized our liberties. I knew this and I'm not a lawyer and I didn't even previously read these opinions. It is such a basic principal that I don't need to be a lawyer to understand this...all you need to have is a basic understanding of what it means to be an American.

JUSTICE HARRY BLACKMUN (Law: - 1st paragraph of his opinion):

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment; in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," ...

JUSTICE HARRY BLACKMUN (History):

The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); id., at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring).

 

The constitutionally protected state restriction is a preserverance of liberty.

Since telling women what to do with their own body clearly represents undue governmental control, the states have no authority on the matter...as outlined by the constitution in Article 14.

 

with all due respect...i think you misstate how the Constitution is interpreted...how laws are applied and interpreted under the Constitution.

 

Well, that's entirely possible. Please show me the error in my ways rather than just stating I'm wrong w/out explanation.

Here's how I see it. Please show me where I am making wrong asumptions:

1. The legislature has SOLE power to make laws.

2. The constitution is above the law. It is uberlaw. It is merely a framework but is not law, in the strict sense.

3. The supreme court can only make rulings to overturn law but it cannot make law...that's reserved for the legislature.

4. Roe v. Wade overturned Texas and Georgia laws that banned abortion. Therefore, by definition, Roe v. Wade is NOT law. It is anti-law. Because of Roe v. Wade exists, we cannot make new laws to place a total ban on abortion.

I'd be curious how you feel I am misinterpreting this. From my perspective, this is all basic stuff but maybe I'm missing something.

 

The relationship w/ Article 14.

State's have rights to do as they please as long as any state doesn't deprive any person of liberty...

So I repeat, telling women what to do with their own body clearly represents undue governmental control, the states have no authority on the matter.

 

While many here have said this opinion is generally regarded as poorly written, I feel this paragraph is particularly spot on.

All of the ensueing problems outlined in this opinion are generally NOT addressed by the Pro-Life camp. They basically say you should have the baby against your will and suck it. Who cares what happens to the mother after that or even the well being of the child itself. Well, each of these unsueing problems could be avoided as well as the abortion itself by focusing on [sing it with me] stopping the unwanted pregnancy.

 

krosfyah --

the point made by those both pro-life and pro-choice on this opinion (because you don't have to be either to have a problem with the way this thing is drafted) is that it is shaky ground. it's a brand new right from the 14th Amendment, all of a sudden discovered. people who were hoping for a pro-choice outcome were hoping for sturdier ground than that. that's why my constitutional law professor ultimately felt it would be overturned and returned to the states to decide...because it's just too shaky.

as for your other point...lawyers cite with specificity to precedent and/or direct language. when they don't have it...when the law isn't on their side...they start talking policy...they start screaming words like liberty and travashamockery. when they do that, for the most part, they've lost. this isn't a different interpretation of the 14th amendment...it's reading in a right to privacy, that never previously existed...which has reprecussions outside of just the abortion issue. those boundaries STILL haven't been explored, and they won't...because everyone knows its crap.

 

Well put. And from a legal perspective, you surely have more insight than I and I must defer. I'll agree when laywers start using words like "liberty" then it is a bad thing because that means they don't have firm grounding to support it.

But that doesn't change the basic premise of what us non-lawywers truely beleive. Many people beleive that the government should have NO say in what we do with our own body...ie...Liberty. How a laywer defends that is a whole other thing.

From my perspective, the Constitution was a document greater than the men that created it. Their intent was important, yes, but that isn't the whole story. They intentionally created a document that was slightly changeable and vague so that it can cover things are that were not explicity granted. AND it has done a pretty good job at that. Look at slavery. It was bad but eventually the constitution prevailed and the right thing was done by protecting their basic human rights.

 

Speaking in pure generalities here: Many poor families tend to be minorities. Poor people don't adopt for obvious reasons. Most white families don't like to adopt minority children. Generally speaking adoption will NOT fix the problem that will inevitabely occur once a total ban on abortion goes into effect.

I know you can find 1,000 exceptions to this rule I just layed out but generally, it holds true. Adoption isn't the silver bullet answer.

So of the kids that DON"T get adopted, how many go into foster care? Is that your imagintive solution? Use your imagination this way, that kid wouldn't be in foster care if the unwanted pregnancy was avoided.

 

krosfyah --

I respect your opinion and the research you have done in this thread. We simply disagree both as to the outcome and as to the meaning of Constitutional law.

This is a thorny issue, largly because emotions run so high on both sides. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for not turning this into an exercise in poo flinging.

One thing to keep in mind here is that there is a fine line between interpreting the law an legislating from the bench. When rights are created out of whole cloth (as in the right to privacy) rather than taking them directly from the Constitution, it tends to cross into legislating. Recall that the decision came down in a time when federal government started creeping into many facets which had previously been reserved for the states. At one point, legal scholars even theorized that there was a 10th Amendment crisis, in that the 10th had been stripped of its meaning because it was summarily ignored by the Court.

You point several times to the court stating that the states have no authority to legislate abortion. I would urge you to read the cases that follow Roe. The Court has backtracked significantly, stating that there are times when the state has a legitimate legislative interest, and can thus intervene. The length of the pregnancy, among other things, all of a sudden made this absolute right not so absolute. Why is that? It is because the Court opined itself into a logical corner. All of these opinions, read together, show that the cases were outcome determinative rather than being based on sound Constitutional analysis.

You have also stated that it is not for me to tell a woman what to do with her body. I dissent from your opinion. If my wife were to get pregnant, she could unilaterally terminate that pregnancy. I have an interest in that fetus. It is my business. If I had a minor daughter who became pregnant, it would be my business. As a parent, I would be charged with her moral and religious upbringing. To allow somebody of tender years to make such an irrevocable decision without the counsel of their parents is absurd.

Even assuming that it is not my business to opine on abortion, there are practical concerns. Given that this is an issue on which so many are divided, perhaps an answer would be to not have the taxpayers fund abortion clincs. Assuming that there is a right to abortion, there isn't a right to have others pay the bill.

 

And the same is true in reverse...who knows what bad can happen to not JUST the children but ALL of society when you flood society with a generation of parentless kids.

So yes, some kids will perservere...and some won't.

Again, could be avoided if you prevent the unwanted pregnancy. Nobody is "murdered" in the womb and nobody has to be raised parentless.

 

Well, thank you. We all have managed to keep it pretty civil. I flung a couple to MadMax earlier and he kept me grounded. This has been a very interesting exercise.

I agree that the opinion expressed in Roe V Wade went too far in legislating the issue by outlining recommended courses of action in the opinion. However, I don't disagree with the yea or nea ruling itself or the justifications behind the ruling. Yes, the layout of 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester distictions went too far. But in their defense, they really only presented a recommendation by which the states should enact their own laws and explicity said just that.

Well, I don't know the history behind why Right to Privacy was such a central issue in the matter. It does seem odd to me. But for me, as a non-lawyer and lay citizen, prior to reading the Roe v. Wade opinions, I was able to determine the true right in question was Liberty...not privacy. Yes privacy was raised but Liberty was what is in question here. Privacy is really only a subcomponant of Liberty itself.

Mr Justice Stewart:
Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ok. But the 14th Ammendment clearly says a state cannot deprive any man of their liberties...as does the 5th ammendment. And since Liberty was what was at stake here, that very obviously supercedes the 10th ammendment, in my mind.

Sorry, I mistated when I said "no authority"

I have said on numerious occasions in this thread that I would not oppose certain restrictions on abortion and I believe MOST Pro-choicers (excluding extremists) feel the same. Roe v. Wade essentially says the same thing.

So let me restate that. The states have NO authority to enact a 100% ban on abortion.

I can't disagree about the degrees of abortion that the court put forth made it wishy-washy. But the case brought forth from Texas and Georgia were about overturning a 100% ban, the courts made it clear that such a 100% ban is clearly unconstitutional. But they shouldn't have stopped there. Going into such depth about how to proceed forward...it wasn't there role.

Actually we mostly agree on this part. The examples you put forth are all your own family. That should always have full capability to influence your own family decisions. Here is where we disgree, the government should NOT have the ability to influence your family decisions. ie Liberty.

Lets be clear...people don't have a "right" to abortion, per say. People have a "right" to not have undue government control of their own bodies.

To be honest, I didn't know taxpayers did fund abortion clinics. If true, I don't disagree with pulling taxpayers funds at all particularly if there was a compromise involved...such as increasing funding for public announcements, sex education, contraceptives, etc. with a focused agenda of reducing unwanted pregnancies.