's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Roe vs Wade(59 posts)

Roe vs WadeClydeTri
Jun 18, 2003 12:52 PM
With the recent news that the woman who was Roe in Roe vs Wade has now reversed and is against abortion and is going to court it reminds me of why I dont like liberal judges. Whether one believes in abortion or not, the Supreme Court judges who voted in favor of abortion on that case were clearly just making up law, legislating from the bench. I have read that part of the Constitution and for them to find a right to privacy applied to a woman's body in respect to an abortion is ludicrious and makes a joke out of the judicial system. That is a view that many of us conservatives have regarding Roe vs Wade. That if abortion should be legal, making it legal should have been done in the correct way, through the LEGISLATIVE process, not some judges who have some weird idea they should impose their thoughts on people rather than interpert the existing law correctly. That is also why liberals are scared of a conservative Supreme Court, because conservative judges tend to not to legislate from the bench and invent law. My point is that if a liberal looks at Roe vs Wade from a calm collected viewpoint they too would realize that it was very poor law and should be overturned. Then if they want abortion legal, they should do it in the way the COnstituion calls for such decisions of this magnitude, an amendement to the Constitution.
re: Roe vs WadeTJeanloz
Jun 18, 2003 12:56 PM
I find it amusing that you view yourself as more qualified to interpret the Constitution than the Supreme Court.
re: Roe vs WadeClydeTri
Jun 18, 2003 1:01 PM
This "litmus test" has become the major battleground of judicial politics. Many politicians of both sides want to impose a litmus test on Roe vs Wade. My point is that real story here is not abortion, but judges making up law out of the blue when that is not their job. Both conservatives and liberals should be very scared of this. In this case it was liberal judges imposing a new law that conservatives dont like. What would prevent the opposite? A very conservative Supreme Court making up laws/rights that dont exist that liberals cant stand? Go read the Constitution and explain to us here how a right concerning search and seizure can be construed to make abortion legal? That is a joke.
I think you're missing a nuance...TJeanloz
Jun 18, 2003 1:13 PM
There isn't a part of the Constitution that makes abortion legal. There is a part which prevents it from being made illegal. Very subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless. At it's core, legislating what one can and cannot do to their own body is, in my view, a deprivation of liberty - which is explicitly banned by the 14th ammendment. If I want to pierce my nose, I don't want the government involved in that decision. That is liberty.

The question really is whether a fetus is a part of the mother's body, or a body with rights of its own. I would argue, as the Supreme Court did in the Roe decision, that until a point of viability, there is no question that the fetus is a part of the mother's body. You probably feel differently, but that's what makes the arguement an arguement.

I also find it interesting that you have determined what the role of the Judiciary is. The Constitution clearly extends the power of the Judiciary over "all cases, in law and equity". Roe vs. Wade, contrary to your assertion, did not create new law - it interpreted old law, and disallowed some old law, but it did not make a new one.
I half agree...jesse1
Jun 19, 2003 2:37 AM
...that the fetus is a part of the mother's body. but "it" is also it's own self. I've always thought that the underlying argument that pro-abortionist use ("It's my body and I have dominion over it")would never hold up in an argument that would allow for the legalization of prostitution or drug useage. Why hasn't that argument been used? I can't figure it out.
Then here's my test:Charlie Amerique
Jun 19, 2003 8:29 AM
Mother wants an abortion; "Pro-Lifer" says "No, that fetus is a person in it's own right!", Then I say: Take the fetus fro mthe mother like a cesarean section and see if it is indeed a person in it's own right. If it dies, the "pro-lifer" was wrong, if it lives, then the mother was wrong.

Simple enough, yes?

(note: I am only trying to make a point here about arguing "logic" in cases where logic has no part.. such as prostitution and drug legalization).
dependency issue?DougSloan
Jun 19, 2003 8:36 AM
If a man is stranded on a small island with his one year old baby, can he legally neglect it and starve the baby to death, arguing that if the baby was "a person in it's own right", then it should take care of itself?

Again, my point is...Charlie Amerique
Jun 19, 2003 8:47 AM
You cannot argue logic when there is no logic to the arguement. Your scenario is the same but let me take it one step further:

This man on the island looks around and deduces that there's not enough resources on the island to sustain himself and little Wilson. He makes a decision that is he starves then Wilson will die from neglect as well so he makes a heartbreaking decision to smother Wilson when goes to sleep.

There's logic... cold, cruel logic... but it works, right?
You got something against Wilson?jesse1
Jun 19, 2003 10:52 AM
Yeah, you're right there. It is logical (Mr. Spock!), but it would also be murder. It wouldn't matter if Wilson would die or not (if the man starved to death first). Suppose just after the man dies, a recue helicopter spots the two and lands. At that point, there would be a dead Wilson, or a live one.
Logic, maybe. Realistic, no.jesse1
Jun 19, 2003 10:41 AM
With out a doubt, even a healthy full term baby born naturally wouldn't survive on it's own. I'm assumming you mean for this to take place under a doctor's care.
Even so, some would die, amd some would live.
My point (maybe not stated so clearly), was that I'd always thought the "main" argument FOR abortion (a woman's right to choose)is that it is her body and she has dominion over her body. So that being the case, why can't a prostitue have sex for money as long as she uses her own body in doing so (and the consenting partner). That would be two consenting indivuals. In an arbortion, it's one that's consenting, and one that can't consent or object.
Jun 19, 2003 11:13 AM
The difference in the arguments, which I'm addressing purely out of academic interest, and don't necessarily agree, is that if you prohibit prostitution, all you are really doing is taking away the woman's right to do something "with her body" for money. She can earn money a million other legal ways, plus can have all the free sex she wants. It's purely an economic right that's infringed. This is not much different than preventing someone from practicing medicine without a license. No real fundamental rights involved.

So, she can give a way all the sex she wants any way she wants. Just can't charge for it. (as little sense as that may make)

Drat! When you put it that way, it does make sense. (nm)jesse1
Jun 19, 2003 11:26 AM
re: Roe vs Wadepurplepaul
Jun 18, 2003 1:19 PM
I think legal scholars on both sides generally admit that Roe is terrible Law, basically unsupported by the Constitution (not entirely unsupported, but it's weak). It does no one a favor to support bad laws just because you support the result. Instead, it opens up accusations of being unprincipled, heavy handed, etc. rather than just in disagreement.

From my understanding of Roe, it should be overturned and probably will be at some point. I hope that whatever replaces it is good law or legislation.

For the record, I want abortion legal on demand. I can't see the value of bringing any unwanted children into the world.
There are plenty of waiting adoptive parents...94Nole
Jun 19, 2003 4:09 AM
to care and nurture those unfortunate children brought into this world by mothers who couldn't care less.

To play God and take the life of a child for the sake of it being unwanted by the birth parents would be denying that child the greatest opportunity known in this universe. What if your mother had so chosen?

Are there adoptive parents here on the board? Please enlighten these poor souls.
There are so many, that...jesse1
Jun 19, 2003 4:32 AM
...those wanting to adopt are looking overseas where pre-natal care is questionable (Russia, China, etc.)and many of these children have hidden mental and physical problems that are a surprise burden to the parents. (Saw that on "60 Minutes")
Plenty of waiting adoptive parents live in fear...Charlie Amerique
Jun 19, 2003 8:41 AM
... that 3-5 years after they adopt a child born in the U.S. that some "great uncle's second cousin" will come forward with a really good lawyer and claim his rights to raise "a child of his own blood" was not respected. The child is then taken fro mthe adoptive parents and given over to "Uncle Ernie".

You might think this is an exageration, and it is... but the truth is much closer to my version than yours. A fellow cyclist (well-known and respected poster over in MTBR) has been researching adoption and is beign told the same thing: adopt from overseas... you have a much better chance of keeping the kid.

I couple in Ohio fostered a child with special needs. The mother was an habitual drug used, the father unknown. They coupel went through the adoption proceedures and everything looked great. The day of the final social worker visit, the regual social worker on the case was unavailable so a replacement was sent in... and immediatly stopped the process. The child was placed back into the system, a "suitable couple" was found in NYC and the child was taken crying, by force, from the arms of the only mother he had ever known and given to this couple.
The child was beaten to death 9 weeks later by the new "father". He showed bruising and scars from abuse from this man over previous 9 weeks. The "father" had been conviceted several years earlier of beating his own child to death and was still on parole from that crime.

The reason the child was taken from the foster parents: They were white, the child was black... and BOTH social workers were black. The second one wanted the child to be "raised by his own people".

Point: Adoption isn't always as easy as "parents on waiting lists.
I can't imagine going through that.jesse1
Jun 19, 2003 11:01 AM
It does take special people to want to go through the adoption process. In fact a cyclist friend of mine (he & she can't have children)went pretty far along in the processand were close to obtaining the child. Somehow it all fell apart and they were devastated.
BTW - Were you thinking of "Pinball Wizzard" when you came up with "Uncle Ernie"? Pretty sicko song, wasn't it? But good.
The problem isn't with adoption but with...94Nole
Jun 20, 2003 6:34 AM
this crappy screwed up system. The scenario you mention is ridiculous but I know all too true. The second "social worker" should be held responsible and be tried for murder in the 2nd degree or at least manslaughter. This is not the adoptive process that I refer to.

I know a lot of adoptive parents (through LDS Social Services) that have children and do not live looking over their shoulders.
Good god, I agree with ClydeTri!Brooks
Jun 18, 2003 1:23 PM
Although I agree with the basic precepts of Roe v Wade (my call would be: any abortion in first trimester, special circumstances for second trimester, and mother's life in the third)I do disagree with the courts making law, instead of interpreting the law. If Congress had any stones at all, they should make legislation defining this issue. Notice I didn't say "settle" the issue because both sides are diametrically opposed. It doesn't have to be a Constitutional Amendment either, although that might help. I really don't agree that a human life begins at conception, but around 3-4 months the dividing cells have differentiated enough for human form.

As for the liberal/conservative debate, I'm just as scared of a liberal bench making law as a conservative bench with strict constructionists that are still thinking in the 1700's. The Constitution should be a "living" document that addresses the culture and technology of the current day.

That is why I'm a centrist that is disgusted with the polarization by both major political parties. Too far to either end of the spectrum and nobody wants to compromise anymore.

Off soapbox.
right of privacyDougSloan
Jun 18, 2003 1:58 PM
Roe largely rested upon a new "right of privacy" the Court found implied in the Constitution. That was never an express right.

While the high Court has the right to interpret the law, this "interpretation" went beyond that. It was outcome based. Courts interpret law when the plain language of the law is ambiguous or vague, susceptible to more than one meaning. No provision of the Constitution was "interpreted" to acheive the result of Roe.

Regardless of whether you agree with the outcome, many scholars agree that the Court created a new right. Some argue that the Court has the right to do that, and the strict constructionists argue the opposite.

Strict construction usually means fewer changes and more predictability. Liberal (as in changing) construction results in potentially good results, but less predictability. Many people prefer changes to come from the people or the legislatures who are accountable for the changes.

Now, once a Supreme Court decision is made, it, too, becomes law. An anti-activist judge at this point would refuse to change that law.

The Constitution clearly grants the States the right to make laws not contrary to the Constitution or preemptive federal law. I can see no federal laws addressing abortion regulation, so in my view, right or wrong, the right to regulate abortion is reserved to the States.

right of privacyJon Billheimer
Jun 19, 2003 6:19 AM
The problem with judges "reading in" rights--as it's called in Canada--is that it short circuits the democratic process. Often legislators prefer this option since it relieves them of the burden of "carrying the can" with the voters, but it also emasculates the legislative body. Although I personally agree with the outcome of Roe vs. Wade I certainly agree with the conservatives that it's not the judiciary's role to make law nor is it its role to act as society's social engineer. This is a really serious problem here in Canada, where parliament is virtually becoming irrelevant in the face of a socially activist Supreme Court. But then, that way, Chretien and his caucus don't have to be responsible to the people that elected them, and by stacking the court they can surreptitiously achieve their social agenda.
right of privacyjtolleson
Jun 19, 2003 7:07 AM
It is funny that the same political forces that criticize Roe v. Wade as "judicial activism" without constitutional roots do not criticize other libertarianesque decisions that arguably suffer from the same infirmity.

The precursor to Roe, Griswold v. Connecticut, invalidated restrictions on birth control because of the privacy rights in the marital relationship. I don't think anyone can say that Griswold at its core isn't fundamentally rooted in the Bill of Rights concepts of individual liberty and limited government control, despite that those words are nowhere used.

More recently, conservative forces have made "parent's rights" arguments to object to laws (often successfully) regarding education, medical needs, and discipline for their kids, saying that keeping government out of the "Family relationship" is implicit in the bill of rights (a bigger stretch than Roe I dare say).

People mostly complain about "judge-made law" when they don't like the outcome.
right of privacyJon Billheimer
Jun 19, 2003 7:21 AM
I agree. But that still begs the more fundamental question of what is the proper role of the judiciary vs. the legislative branch of government. Yesterday, in the wake of controversy over the Ontario Supreme Court's legalization of same sex marriage in that Province, Federal Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly MacLachlan said that a judge's political biases do not affect his/her rulings. What a crock! I couldn't believe that someone of her position would make such disingenuous comments.
griswold, etc.DougSloan
Jun 19, 2003 7:58 AM
I took another look at Griswold, which I had forgotten about. Yes, it did raise the issue of privacy (penumbral rights) prior to Roe. Still, that's pure bootstrapping -- inventing a right then using that as precedent in another case. In fact, Griswold spends a great deal of time reciting all the bootstrapping and right-invention the Court had done over the years.

Some people argue against judicial activism based upon results, but others actually, believe it or not, have principles and stick to them, good or bad. I, for one, dislike judicial activism regardless of the result -- note that above I conceded that Roe is law now, and judicial restraint means leaving it alone, even if it is bad law.

griswold, etc.ClydeTri
Jun 19, 2003 8:01 AM
Judicial restraint, but legislatures should and can reverse activist judiciary...
Constitutional Amendments are tough, though. nmDougSloan
Jun 19, 2003 8:06 AM
they should be....moreClydeTri
Jun 19, 2003 8:09 AM
Constitutional amendments should be very tough, should not be easy to just willy nilly change the very fabric of our society. By making them tough it forces our society to only do in on very important issues and by nature of the process makes it take time which provides for debate and thought.
I argue ...sacheson
Jun 19, 2003 6:21 AM
... if males were the child bearing sex, it wouldn't be an issue. No person, organization, or governement, regardless of their status, would ever be able to tell a man what to do with his body.

I also find it quite humorous that someone who will never be in a situation to decide whether to have an abortion can have an opinion ... but then again, those same people pass judgement against the homeless and financially less fortunate for their situations as well ...
I argue ...jesse1
Jun 19, 2003 11:21 AM
I stated this above, and this is only for the sake of this argument as I don't beieve in the legalization of prostitution. Now you said:
"No person, organization, or governement, regardless of their status, would ever be able to tell a man what to do with his body."
What if I and a willing prostitute are caught in the act. Local/state athorities are definitly going to tell she & I what we can't be doing with our bodies, and furthermore, we'd probably be arrested.
Your last paragraph is so ridiculous it's hard to respond to it. I'm fortunate to have never been the father of a yet to be born child that was facing abortion, but I would think that if that father was really looking forward to his child, that would kinda place him in the "situation".
And I'm not sure what you mean by "those same people". You're lumping a bunch of topics together and sticking a label on some group. Republicans? There are actually some pro-abortion/choice Republicans in office right now. One that comes to mind is the Lt. Governor of Maryland. His running mate (the current governor who's pro-life) knew all to well before hand that that was the case and they're still a good team.
I argue ...sacheson
Jun 19, 2003 8:18 PM
I appreciate your argument, but I disagree that "consensual" sex with a prostitute (where it is illegal) is comparing apples-to-apples here. Sex with a prostitute is illegal in most states, not sex itself. On top of that, sex with a prostitute is illegal for both males and females (as there are male prostitutes). So the act isn't what's in question it's the parties involved. (Similarly, making money isn't illegal - but embezzling it is)

On the second point, my direction was a little strong, pointed and generalizing ... but was NOT directed towards Republicans as a whole. Rather, I was referring to the group that is trying to legislate morals on the American population (an elite sub-group of the Republicans). Sorry for how it was worded. It was small-minded and shallow on my part.

Additionally, are you proposing that a father-to-be can empathize with a pregnant woman? Are you saying that person is in the same situation as the female? If so, that's pretty bold. And I disagree whole-heartedly that a man could ever be in that "situation". My wife is pregnant with our first child right now. I'm right next to her as often as I can be, making many sacrifices, and being as much a part of this adventure as any male could be. Yet I could never be bold enough to imply I was in her situation. There are things going on with her both physically and emotionally that I will never experience (gladly – ssshhhh). And whereas I have always considered myself a noble person, and IF I was ever in a situation where an unexpected pregnancy happened, I would have followed the same path as I am now, and accepted my responsibilities. In that position (the pre-wed, potentially young and unexpected father), I (personally) would not favor abortion with my own child. Unfortunately, not all situations are that cut-and-dried, and some people are presented with situations that (as stated before), you or I will never appreciate.

In the situation you cite where the father is there, and is excited for the child, I'd argue (in most cases) abortion would only be a last resort. I feel that most situations where abortion is considered are brought on by an apathetic sperm donor type, not a father.

My point is two parts:
1. I don't think it would be a debate if males were the child bearing gender; men wouldn't let the government mandate that on them.
2. Those that haven't been in that situation (being a single, pregnant female with few options) seem to have some strong opinions of it. What if they were put in that situation? Think their opinions would differ?

Of course, IF the female decides to have the baby and IF there is no one there to help her out, it seems to me she'd probably become a tax burden to society, again ridiculed by those who were against the abortion. Doesn't seem like a grand position to be in . f'ed if you do, f'ed if you don't.
I recant somewhat.jesse1
Jun 20, 2003 4:34 AM
Yeah, I was so proud of my analogy about the prostituion thing, until Doug let the air out of my innertube! He (& you) made a good point there.
And I do realize that the father & the mother-to-be are not exactly in the same boat, but I do believe the father has a vested interest in the birth of the child that shouldn't be slighted. All this goes out the window if there are underlying health concerns for the mother & child. But any decisions are different in each case and it would take Solomon or God to make a decision that all could live with.
BTW - my personal view in the choice vs life argument is that I believe all life is God given and shouldn't be toyed with by man/woman. That said - I also believe that governments have too much say in our "rights" or lack of. I also hate seeing people outside of abortion clinics harrassing those going in & out. I think most of those that do would be better served praying about the situation.
I would add to your comment ...sacheson
Jun 20, 2003 5:09 AM
the people outside the clinics frustrate me as well. I feel (although probably filled with holes) if those people put their energy towards something positive - you mention prayer, I suggest going further by educating and truly helping women in that situation - the rate of abortions would drop. I mean, I'm hardly an expert on programs that provide assistance, but from the outsider perspective, I see a lot of "help" with organizations that offer abortions, and little but intimidation from people opposing it. I see vulnerable individuals that are chastised for a mistake, being ditched by the male, or whatever circumstances got them there, being taken advantage of by people that consider themselves morally superior.

And I kind of feel the way you do about the whole topic, but would add since I have not been in any similar situation, I don't know how I'd react, nor can I really judge those who are there.

On a final note, and probably not even worth saying (but I will anyway), the church my family went to when I was younger experienced a little scandal over abortion. Apparently the Pastor (who adamantly preached against abortion) dicovered one day his own daughter conceived at 15. Fearing the repurcussions of his pregnant daughter and his reputation in the church, he 'made' (in quotes because it's a story and I don't know if he actually forced her) her get an abortion. It came out a couple of years later, and I was surprised - it really didn't even damage his reputation with the congregation. I was an impressionable 11 or 12 at the time, and it really left a mark on me. One of the reasons I might be a little harsh towards the religious right ... first-hand experiences with that level of hypocracy from people that preach that strongly. Given, I know that's more the exception and not the norm ... but it really enforces the cliche 'those in glass houses ...'

To give a opposite story, when I was in high school a girl got pregnant. She was cast away by her parents and taken in by a family from her church. They offered her support, education, assistance, and a vector for communcaiton with her own parents. In the end, the child was adopted, she made up with her parents, and blended pretty much right back into school.

I think our society needs to come past the negative preaching, and become more accepting and helping of each other ... but that's for another topic.
I disagree....Starliner
Jun 20, 2003 8:21 PM
I don't know what evidence you're basing your opinions on, but IMO you're wrong. Men would treat this issue in the same way that men treat prostitution - the moralists among us would still be around making noise.

As a single man, I think I ought to have the right to buy sex if I want, straight up. What's your problem with that?
Aside from making ...sacheson
Jun 21, 2003 6:43 AM
... a little fun of you for having to pay for sex, I wouldn't think anything of it. I think it should be legalized, that way the gub'ment can control it.

But then again, I'm the type that thinks a lot of sin laws (prostitution, marijuana, etc.) should be legalized and taxed like mad.
Don't laugh...Starliner
Jun 21, 2003 5:35 PM
Men pay for sex every day - just consider how much is costs to go through the courting rituals of dating (drinks, dinner, a show, etc.). To be cynical about it, it's a form of institutionalized prostitution. When it gets to be a bore, there are times when you wish you could just cut to the chase -
If Roe v. Wade were reversed...jtolleson
Jun 19, 2003 7:03 AM
do you really think that any state in our country (even Utah) would actually ban abortion? I could see certain restrictions stepped up (late term abortions and parental notice for minors) but I don't think the majority of Americans is ready for the back alley butcher days.
If Roe v. Wade were reversed...Matno
Jun 19, 2003 7:49 AM
Since you mentioned Utah... The prevailing opinion in Utah (based on the dominant religion) is that abortion is acceptable under certain VERY limited circumstances. This places them at odds with other religious groups such as Catholics and many of the "fundamentalist Christian" churches, who teach that abortion is wrong in ALL situations. However, I happen to think that the Mormons' teaching on the issue is pretty good. Basically, it boils down to choice. Abortion is not acceptable as a mere "convenience" but may be allowed in circumstances where the mother did not choose to participate in activities that could lead to pregnancy (e.g. rape/incest). There is also an exception when the mother's life is in danger. Notice I didn't say situations in which the mother did not choose to become pregnant. Women who have abortions rarely wanted to become pregnant. However, as far as I know, the only 100% successful ways to avoid pregnancy are abstinence and radical surgery (even getting tubes tied isn't a guarantee). Everything else has at least SOME chance of failure (just ask my friend who had three children - all conceived while on the pill!), and people should be responsible for the consequences of their chosen actions.

As for the fetus being a part of the mother, I won't buy that until women figure out a way to fertilize their own eggs. Every fetus is half mother, half father, and thus is not merely "part of the woman's body."
That is one thing that has bothered me...ClydeTri
Jun 19, 2003 8:06 AM
The woman claims its her decision, and hers alone, but the baby is half the genetics of the father. If the woman decides to have the baby she can force the father legally into 18 years of paying for its upkeep (as he should), but yet she says if she wants to abort it, the father has no legal input. That is a major contradiction. Logically, if the mother can hold the father legally bound to child support, then she is admitting that it is part "his". So, if it is part his, then he should have legal input on whether to abort or not. If a woman wants nobody to have any input on her "right" to abort, then men should be totally removed from any legal or financial obligations to the baby, since according to the woman and current law, it is the woman's and the woman's only baby.
the issue is not about fairnessDougSloan
Jun 19, 2003 8:15 AM
Roe is not about fairness; never was. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

Here is the bottom line. As wrong as abortion may be, some women will seek abortions no matter how unconstitutional, illegal, unfair, unwise, immoral, it may be, and when they do, if not through legal means, they stand a greater chance of physical and emotional injury to themselves. In other words, the argument goes, if they are going to do it, don't make it illegal and force them to do it dangerously.

Also, women make up half the voters in the country and strongly influence political and judicial decision making. If many of those women want abortion to be legal, then it will be. Case closed.

It's just too bad people don't consider these things before having sex in the first place.

Right...right onStarliner
Jun 19, 2003 8:32 AM
I agree that if R v. W was overturned, the days of legal abortion would not be over. I am among the growing number of men who would join together in support of keeping abortion legal, but discarding the current law which gives women full fetal rights while giving fathers none. That must be corrected, and if it means scrapping Roe vs. Wade and starting over, then so be it.
Jun 19, 2003 8:05 AM
I have little doubt that some states would ban abortion, especially Utah, if not by the legislatures, then possibly by referendum or initiative.

Recall the breakdown by county of the 2000 election? I'd bet it would fairly mirror positions on this issue. Certainly it would not be as close, but there are a vast number of Americans who believe abortion is the same as murder, and should be equally prohibited. If not for Roe, those people would have a very strong voice; in fact, Roe, itself, probably influenced many people henceforth to feel that abortion should be permitted. If it never had existed, many states that had banned it would still have the laws on the books, as it would have been status quo and popular opinion would not have been swayed by the decision.

Excuse me gentlemen but...Tiny Tank
Jun 19, 2003 9:07 AM
as I woman I find it frustrating that men voice their opinion about something they know nothing about.

Is it remotely possible for anyone of you gentlemen to find yourself someday pregnant after been rape by someone, and what if that someone was your own father?!?!?!

Do not judge or do not comment on something that is as complex and as personal as abortion, to do so would be very hypocritical in my opinion.

Then I take it you disagree with Roe?DougSloan
Jun 19, 2003 9:20 AM
After all, it was decided by all men?

Can women who have never been pregnant voice an opinion? Can women who have been pregnant, but not had an abortion voice an opinion?

Pregancy from rape is rare, and even more rare from incest rape, and certainly not a justifications for all other abortions.

Know *nothing* about? That's not really a fair statement, is it?

I didn't state my possition on this...Tiny Tank
Jun 19, 2003 10:00 AM
I simply said that a woman who is pregnant should have options and whatever decision she makes should be her own. Men will never have the responsibility to carry a child and found disturbing that they are the one making the decisions on this.

I also believe that woman who don't want to have a child should take measure not to get pregnant as contraception IS AVAILABLE.

Bottom line is each case is unique and no one is in position to judge others, ever. Choices should be available since we claim to live in a liberated world where each one has a right to its freedom of choice.

I'm an extreme believer in individual choiceDougSloan
Jun 19, 2003 10:19 AM
I just believe that the unborn child is an individual, too, with as much right to live as anyone else, and that this right to live is superior to the mother's right of privacy or right to control her body. In other words, "life" trumps "privacy."

My quarrel with your message is your argument that men have no say in this. We are talking about lives created by men and women together. Further, if you grant any credence to the any rights of the unborn child, then men have just as much right and obligation to defend the unborn child's rights as women. We protect rights of those who cannot defend themselves all the time.

Your extreme libertarian conclusion is valid only if the unborn child and the father have no rights. If that were true, I'd agree.

No one is in a position to judge others, ever?purplepaul
Jun 19, 2003 2:53 PM
Are you serious? Each case is not that unique; sure some women and men react to the aborting of the fetus they created differently than others. But I'd expect the vast majority of the cases to be fairly similar to each other (i.e. consensual sex that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy).

Our freedoms are limited all the time, so your last sentence is really puzzling. Are you saying you believe that society has no right to limit the freedoms of its citizens?

Men won't have the responsibility of physically carrying the child to term, but that doesn't mean they don't have a physical (the child began with two cells, one from the father) and psychological attachment to the child. Even if men weren't forced to pay for the child and the mother for many years should the mother choose to carry the baby to term, they'd still be instrumental in its creation. The men who go with the woman to have an abortion, the male doctors who provide it, friends and family can all see how it affects her. Your statement that men cannot understand something that they don't go through is insulting and, furthermore, wrong.

Or, perhaps you'd be happier if women were only subjected to laws created by women. But, then, would you object to having to obey laws written by heterosexual women if you're a lesbian?
I love constitutional arguments!53T
Jun 19, 2003 10:16 AM
These questions of rights, roles of govenment, role of the judiciary, and the history of the SC always fascinate me. Unfortunatly, they serve to remind me about how little the average American has studied civics (to use a most general term). Perhaps it is a good thing that we as a nation are very disinterested in government. I have visited countries where the major preoccupation was government, and these were all third-world (sorry, "developing") countries.

I also found the Court's creation of a right of privacy ("the righ to be left alone"), sewn out of the fabric of several of the first ten amendments, to be a real stretch. However, the early 70's represented the last years of a period of huge supreme court activism, and they must have felt emboldened by their past progress.

On the other hand, I support a legislative establishment of a right of privacy. A right that would not stop at abortion, but extend far enough to stifle the steady flow of v-chip-like ideas and imigrant abuses that eminate from Washington.

In general, I would encourage all Americans to read something about the histoy of the SC. A good understanding of the SC is an excellent foundation for understanding the more public behaviors of the other branches and the States.
Try this book for starters:
Hey Annie ...sacheson
Jun 19, 2003 10:02 AM
... not all men are hypocrites. See my post above (titled: I argue ...). As I stated there, if the choice had to do with a man's body, it wouldn't even be an issue.
If one has a "RIGHT" to....ClydeTri
Jun 19, 2003 11:44 AM
do what they want with their own body, how is suicide illegal?
not illegalDougSloan
Jun 19, 2003 12:25 PM
Suicide is not illegal -- only attempted suicide. ;-)

not illegal???????????ClydeTri
Jun 19, 2003 12:33 PM
YOu sure its not illegal if you are succesful, but just makes no sense to prosecute? :~)
Jun 19, 2003 12:39 PM
That was a little tongue in cheek. I doubt a corpse has ever stood trial for suicide, much less convicted. I think there would be a due process problem. ;-)

Jun 19, 2003 12:41 PM
I know it was...I guess one could bring a civil case against a corpse, i.e. their estate though....
I'll defer to Doug on this, but...The Walrus
Jun 19, 2003 1:10 PM
A long time ago, just for laughs, I took a Penal Code class that was part of the "Administration of Justice" (i.e., Police Science) program at a local JC; the instructor was a sergeant with a nearby department. He once asked the class if suicide was illegal (in California), and most people responded that it was. He challenged us to cite a penal code section--no one could. Furthermore, he contended that since one couldn't be prosecuted for attempting something that isn't a crime, that there was no chance of being arrested/tried for attempted suicide.

Just curious, Doug--your take on this?
no ideaDougSloan
Jun 19, 2003 1:19 PM
They'd probably just lock you up in a padded room, any way. I'd think that even if it were illegal, the insanity defense might be fairly strong.

Now, I suppose you might be committing other crimes in some attempts, like "illegal disharge of a weapon," etc. They could prosecute something like that.

If I have time and get really bored, I'll check it out.

no ideaClydeTri
Jun 19, 2003 1:25 PM
The below doesnt make suicide illegal, but would make it constitutionally valid to have such a law, correct?

Alpers, Ann, and Lo, Bernard. The Supreme Court Addresses Physician-Assisted Suicide. Archives of Family Medicine 8(3): 200-205, May/June 1999.

In June 1997, the US Supreme Court unanimously decided that competent, terminally ill patients have no general constitutional right to commit suicide or to obtain assistance in committing suicide. Thus, the broad prohibitions against any kind of suicide assistance that almost every state has enacted do not violate the constitution. While many of the rulings and the bulk of the reaction to them focused on the Supreme Court's resolution of important legal controversies regarding physician-assisted suicide, this article focuses on the resulting potential for change in physicians' opinions on palliative care. The Court's reasoning may help physicians resolve substantial ethical dilemmas regarding the provision of narcotics given in high dosages, the care of incompetent patients, and the suffering caused by symptoms other than pain. For example, the Court concluded that a physician's intent can distinguish permissible acts of aggressive pain relief from impermissible acts of hastening death. This distinction has clinical uses and can help physicians develop ethical guidelines and practice standards to improve palliative care near the end of life. [Author abstract]
assisting suicide is something else entirely nmDougSloan
Jun 19, 2003 1:28 PM
understand and agree nmClydeTri
Jun 19, 2003 1:29 PM
Maybe attempted suicide should be a capital crime? :~)ClydeTri
Jun 20, 2003 7:11 AM