RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics



Message

Jhud -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/19/2008 12:29:21 PM)

quote:

Jhud, one judge really? Please explain.


Well the first thing to understand is that it's pretty widely accepted, by both liberal and conservative Constitutional scholars, that Roe rests on very shaky legal ground.

It is the product of 'penumbra' of the 'emanations' of other rights actually found in the Constitution. That means that no such right actually exists, but somehow be detected as emanating from other rights that do actually exist and are numerated in the Bill of Rights.

This is language borrowed from an earlier case, Griswold, which established privacy rights in terms of contraception, itself somewhat shaky.

For the most part the court completely avoided the issues of personhood of the fetus, part of what planted the seeds of the controversy to come.

Roe v Wade really marks the beginning of the modern understanding of the Originalist/Living text split on the court, a controversy which basically spilts between those who say we should read the Constitution as it is written, and only add to it by amendment as intended, and those who claim it is a 'living document' which grows and changes with the times and can be re-interpreted for each generation - thus we can discover 'new' rights like the right to abortion and gay marriage.

It is this split which now exists on the Court, four justices on one side, five on the other side. One of the liberal justices is quite old (Justice Stephens, who is 87) and likely to retire (or die) in the next four to eight years. Whomever replaces him has the potential to shape the court for some time, and considering the four justices are among the youngest, adding just one truly conservative judge could change its direction for a decade or more. There is no guarantee of course this will happen, but I think the possibility is closer than ever.

I personally think this the most critical issue of the next election.



ljmac -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/19/2008 12:32:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stampinlady

quote:

Why should those who murder outside the womb be treated different than those who choose to do it inside the womb?


So if we apply your line of thinking a scared 16 year old who has no idea of what she's doing should be excecuted if she chooses to have an abortion?[&:] Or are you saying that the Dr.'s and nurses are the ones who should be executed? Or all involved including the parents?

My Op was posted because I'm know very little about the history of abortion and why the government got involved and if it can be overturned/amended, that's all. I've had one and know the consequences one has to live with and believe that it's wrong. I'm not trying to justify anything at all. And I don't get the hype over voting for a pro-choice candidate because they've been in office and have done nothing to over turn/amend it.

Jhud, one judge really? Please explain.


Seriously, read Bernard Nathanson's works.

Jhud is presuming that one more clear thinking SC justice would change the court from pro-Roe to pro-Constitution. Then if presented with the right case, the court could overturn Death Roe.

This act alone would not ban abortion anywhere, or even restrict it. It would then be a matter for each state to decide.

The hand of God

Nathanson:
"The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000."

"We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its "socially backward ideas" and
picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion."

Nathanson's confession



Jhud -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/19/2008 1:44:43 PM)

quote:

Jhud is presuming that one more clear thinking SC justice would change the court from pro-Roe to pro-Constitution. Then if presented with the right case, the court could overturn Death Roe.

This act alone would not ban abortion anywhere, or even restrict it. It would then be a matter for each state to decide.


Actually, I am not presuming any such thing, and I am not sure how you read that into what I said.

One judge could certainly change the balance of the court, and that would open the way to begin to repeal the current legal basis for Roe.

Then of course the real work begins. But it can't begin at all until the court changes.



SuspenseWriter -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/19/2008 2:06:50 PM)

Can it be overturned? Yes. Will it? Never.

America is simply too much in love with the idea of abortion as a cheap and easy fix-all; it's become part of our fabric. And to to put the cherry on top, in November we'll elect Barack Obama.... So no, they're here to stay.

[edited by moderator]



bzirk -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/19/2008 2:36:04 PM)

Never say never about this. I've seen some pretty bizarre things in my life time and some of them were very pleasant surprises to my jaded self.

Just because something looks dire doesn't mean it is. As another poster said, "With God all things are possible." So true.



rcjames -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/19/2008 4:24:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Jhud, one judge really? Please explain.


Well the first thing to understand is that it's pretty widely accepted, by both liberal and conservative Constitutional scholars, that Roe rests on very shaky legal ground.

It is the product of 'penumbra' of the 'emanations' of other rights actually found in the Constitution. That means that no such right actually exists, but somehow be detected as emanating from other rights that do actually exist and are numerated in the Bill of Rights.

This is language borrowed from an earlier case, Griswold, which established privacy rights in terms of contraception, itself somewhat shaky.

For the most part the court completely avoided the issues of personhood of the fetus, part of what planted the seeds of the controversy to come.

Roe v Wade really marks the beginning of the modern understanding of the Originalist/Living text split on the court, a controversy which basically spilts between those who say we should read the Constitution as it is written, and only add to it by amendment as intended, and those who claim it is a 'living document' which grows and changes with the times and can be re-interpreted for each generation - thus we can discover 'new' rights like the right to abortion and gay marriage.

It is this split which now exists on the Court, four justices on one side, five on the other side. One of the liberal justices is quite old (Justice Stephens, who is 87) and likely to retire (or die) in the next four to eight years. Whomever replaces him has the potential to shape the court for some time, and considering the four justices are among the youngest, adding just one truly conservative judge could change its direction for a decade or more. There is no guarantee of course this will happen, but I think the possibility is closer than ever.

I personally think this the most critical issue of the next election.


excellent post Jhud.

Since the decision was based on such weak law interpretation with a majority of strict constitutionalist judges and the right case it could well be overturned; it is not set in stone.

Notice I said constitutionalist judges, not liberal or conservitive, not democrat or republican, but judges whose goal it is to interpret stickly the chonstitution. What we have been subjected to for 40 plus years in agenda driven judges who legislate from the bench.

I have a real concern that if we keep activist judges in the Supreme Court that the bedrock of our nation (the Constitution) will be totally eroded away; then we fall.

Thanks
RC



ljmac -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/19/2008 5:54:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Jhud is presuming that one more clear thinking SC justice would change the court from pro-Roe to pro-Constitution. Then if presented with the right case, the court could overturn Death Roe.

This act alone would not ban abortion anywhere, or even restrict it. It would then be a matter for each state to decide.


Actually, I am not presuming any such thing, and I am not sure how you read that into what I said.

One judge could certainly change the balance of the court, and that would open the way to begin to repeal the current legal basis for Roe.

Then of course the real work begins. But it can't begin at all until the court changes.


Maybe I got it from this. "All it would take at this point to overturn Roe is a single judge."



Shrommer -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/19/2008 10:24:51 PM)

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the need for a Constitutional amendment. There is really no argument that the zygote and blastocyst are not living cells while they are alive, nor is there any argument that their DNA is not human when they are the fruit of human sperm and egg; therefore this is living human tissue, with a distinct DNA from the mother's, and quite certainly a human life. There is no need to bring in any religious arguments to show that this is human life; the scientific definitions of "human" and "life" are quite sufficient.

What we need is an amendment to define personhood as beginning with conception, when the new human life is begun.

Our 14th amendment:
[certain persons] .... are citizens. No state shall ... of citizens .... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, ... ------------------------------

The first two parts have to do with citizens, but the third part has to do with any person in general. The Courts should have to recognize that personhood begins at the moment of conception.

If a majority of Americans favor legalized abortion, then they should need to amend the Constitution to define "person" as a status beginning at some precise time after conception. As it is now, it is pro-lifers who almost need to amend the Constitution to read that legal personhood be conferred upon conception.

The second point is the matter of "due process of law". If we define the Roe vs. Wade decision as "due process of law", then a whole group of people has had their right to life taken away based on their age through due process of law. "Due process of law" however in its standard legal definition (Floyd G. Cullop in The Constitution of the United States, Signet, 1983, p. 84) refers to "found guilty of a crime in a court of law following fair legal practices based upon fair laws".

No matter where abortion falls on those last three clauses (last thirteen words), it is plain to all that the aborted fetuses have not been found guilty of any crime. My conclusion is that the Roe vs. Wade decision is unconstitutional based upon the 14th Amendment. We need a new amendment to prove it to the Supreme Court though, since Roe vs. Wade excluded unborn human life from the personhood category in making their decision.

It is not just the Declaration of Independence which speaks of a right to life. The 14th amendment contains it as well as part of our Constitution.



SovereignIsHe -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/19/2008 10:59:33 PM)

quote:


ORIGINAL: stampinlady


So if we apply your line of thinking a scared 16 year old who has no idea of what she's doing should be excecuted if she chooses to have an abortion?


Is there a reason why you responded with the exception regarding abortion? Scared 16 year olds are not the majority of folks getting abortions... As well what says she doesn't know what she is doing? For the record if the same scared 16 year old stomped a child to death in the park what do you think should be done to her?

quote:


Or are you saying that the Dr.'s and nurses are the ones who should be executed? Or all involved including the parents?


One of the more common reason people get the death penalty is for murder for hire cases, so yes...

John



stampinlady -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/21/2008 11:59:01 AM)

quote:

For the record if the same scared 16 year old stomped a child to death in the park what do you think should be done to her?


Apples and oranges.



CCCdnt -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/23/2008 9:54:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stampinlady

quote:

For the record if the same scared 16 year old stomped a child to death in the park what do you think should be done to her?


Apples and oranges.


Why do you say this? Because an unborn baby's means of execution is not by stomping to death, and/or because he did not say the baby was the 16 year old's baby? If that is the case, then how about this -

What if the same scared 16 year old cut her baby into pieces? - or - What if the same scared 16 year old hired someone to cut her baby into pieces?



stampinlady -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/23/2008 10:28:31 AM)

I'm not gonna answer your question because it's just pointless. This thread is about whether or not Roe vs Wade can be overturned. [&:]

Anyway, Jhud mentioned how just one more judge is needed and I'm kind of curious how that would work.



CCCdnt -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/23/2008 10:54:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stampinlady

I'm not gonna answer your question because it's just pointless. This thread is about whether or not Roe vs Wade can be overturned. [&:]


My question stemmed from the question to which you did respond. Why did you not point out then that the question was pointless and then refer to how the question was off-topic (which you seem to be doing by saying that this thread is about whether or not Roe vs Wade can be overturned)?

Furthermore, as far as staying on topic, what about when you posted the following:
"So if we apply your line of thinking a scared 16 year old who has no idea of what she's doing should be excecuted if she chooses to have an abortion? Or are you saying that the Dr.'s and nurses are the ones who should be executed? Or all involved including the parents?"
You did not seem to have a problem commenting on this, but now that I have reworded a question to which you said the original question was "apples to oranges", instead of answering you basically try to deflect the question. If it is this thread that is the problem, I would be happy to post the question in a new thread if you would then answer it there.



solo_soprano22 -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/23/2008 1:22:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CCCdnt

quote:

ORIGINAL: stampinlady

I'm not gonna answer your question because it's just pointless. This thread is about whether or not Roe vs Wade can be overturned. [&:]


My question stemmed from the question to which you did respond. Why did you not point out then that the question was pointless and then refer to how the question was off-topic (which you seem to be doing by saying that this thread is about whether or not Roe vs Wade can be overturned)?

Furthermore, as far as staying on topic, what about when you posted the following:
"So if we apply your line of thinking a scared 16 year old who has no idea of what she's doing should be excecuted if she chooses to have an abortion? Or are you saying that the Dr.'s and nurses are the ones who should be executed? Or all involved including the parents?"
You did not seem to have a problem commenting on this, but now that I have reworded a question to which you said the original question was "apples to oranges", instead of answering you basically try to deflect the question. If it is this thread that is the problem, I would be happy to post the question in a new thread if you would then answer it there.


I think she's trying to say that the thread needs to get back on the topic at hand no matter where it went off. She might not want the thread to go there. That question can be answered in the abortion thread or a new one better probably. :)



CCCdnt -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/23/2008 3:05:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22

quote:

ORIGINAL: CCCdnt

quote:

ORIGINAL: stampinlady

I'm not gonna answer your question because it's just pointless. This thread is about whether or not Roe vs Wade can be overturned. [&:]


My question stemmed from the question to which you did respond. Why did you not point out then that the question was pointless and then refer to how the question was off-topic (which you seem to be doing by saying that this thread is about whether or not Roe vs Wade can be overturned)?

Furthermore, as far as staying on topic, what about when you posted the following:
"So if we apply your line of thinking a scared 16 year old who has no idea of what she's doing should be excecuted if she chooses to have an abortion? Or are you saying that the Dr.'s and nurses are the ones who should be executed? Or all involved including the parents?"
You did not seem to have a problem commenting on this, but now that I have reworded a question to which you said the original question was "apples to oranges", instead of answering you basically try to deflect the question. If it is this thread that is the problem, I would be happy to post the question in a new thread if you would then answer it there.


I think she's trying to say that the thread needs to get back on the topic at hand no matter where it went off. She might not want the thread to go there. That question can be answered in the abortion thread or a new one better probably. :)

I know that she is saying that the posts were off-topic. I just find it interesting when she decided to point that out. This makes it appear as if she is trying to avoid the questions rather than being concerned with the thread getting off-topic.



stampinlady -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/23/2008 4:46:06 PM)

CC, while I appreciate your concern over my response this isn't the thread for it and my bad for responding to S's question.

Back to the topic.[:D]



SovereignIsHe -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/26/2008 3:05:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stampinlady

quote:

For the record if the same scared 16 year old stomped a child to death in the park what do you think should be done to her?


Apples and oranges.



So a supposed scared 16 year old can murder what's in the womb, but not outside the womb... That's hypocrisy 101...

John



SovereignIsHe -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/26/2008 3:06:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22
I think she's trying to say that the thread needs to get back on the topic at hand no matter where it went off. She might not want the thread to go there. That question can be answered in the abortion thread or a new one better probably. :)



Actually it's called avoiding the question...

John



tracydolls -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/26/2008 3:28:18 AM)

quote:

So if we apply your line of thinking a scared 16 year old who has no idea of what she's doing should be excecuted if she chooses to have an abortion? Or are you saying that the Dr.'s and nurses are the ones who should be executed? Or all involved including the parents?

My Op was posted because I'm know very little about the history of abortion and why the government got involved and if it can be overturned/amended, that's all. I've had one and know the consequences one has to live with and believe that it's wrong. I'm not trying to justify anything at all. And I don't get the hype over voting for a pro-choice candidate because they've been in office and have done nothing to over turn/amend it.

Jhud, one judge really? Please explain.



I would also like to know how voting for a president changes anything. Since the intro of abortions in 1973? We have had Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Carter, Clinton, Bush 1 and 2.

5 conservative and 2 liberals.

It cannot always be it's the liberal's fault.

The SC judges are also conservative, are they not?

Stampinlady,

I gotta give it to you! To make that confession here. WHEW!

Your a better woman than me![:)]



stampinlady -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/27/2008 12:49:13 PM)

quote:

Actually it's called avoiding the question...


No, it's about taking the thread off topic. I think there's already a thread debating pro-life/choice.[8|]

Tracy, it's truth to me. I think it would have been better to have the whole country vote on whether or not we want it legalized, but that didn't happen.



solo_soprano22 -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/27/2008 2:20:11 PM)

Deb, I think he does that on purpose to irk people. Just ignore him and get your thread back on topic lol.



tracydolls -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/27/2008 3:54:29 PM)

quote:

Tracy, it's truth to me. I think it would have been better to have the whole country vote on whether or not we want it legalized, but that didn't happen.


Stamp,

Yes, we should've voted on it. I was a wee child in 1973.[:D] So I don't think I could've voted but.....

But I m watching this thread because I have asked this before?

How can we change it?

Usually you get answers like kill all the liberals, etc.

I admire you for telling the truth.

I have been trying to research it, but mostly it's vote for this person so he can change the court.

I say that ain't working either so.......I don't know what to do.

I would LOVE to see some real we can use them answers.



SovereignIsHe -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/27/2008 8:10:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stampinlady

quote:

Actually it's called avoiding the question...


No, it's about taking the thread off topic. I think there's already a thread debating pro-life/choice.[8|]

Tracy, it's truth to me. I think it would have been better to have the whole country vote on whether or not we want it legalized, but that didn't happen.


Of course the fact that you introduced the scared 16 year old into the picture rebuts any silly notion this about getting the thread back on topic...

John



Roberta_ -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/28/2008 4:09:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:

ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22
I think she's trying to say that the thread needs to get back on the topic at hand no matter where it went off. She might not want the thread to go there. That question can be answered in the abortion thread or a new one better probably. :)



Actually it's called avoiding the question...

John


Hey John, you can always start your own thread.



Bluethread -> RE: Can Roe vs Wade be overturned? (6/28/2008 7:03:14 AM)

The only way to truly change a law so it stays changed is grass roots. First, we need to remove the option of abortion from our families. Sex-ed, or any education for that matter is not the responsibility of the governement. We need to teach our children early and often that the only way to really avoid pregnancy and STD's is abstinence until marrage(that is biblical not state marrage), fidelity after marrage and no divorce except for the cause of adultry or critical abuse. We need to spend time, quantity and quality, with our children and spouses. Remember, the children are watching. How we treat our spouses tells them alot about how they should treat theirs.

Next we remove it from our communities. That is those with which we have commited relationships, not just aquantances. If we are not in a community as previously defined, we need to try to get into one. We do this by looking out for one another. There was a time when, if the neighbor lady told your mother or father you were doing something wrong, you were in big trouble. Now parents excuse their childrens actions before they even know what happened. We need to spend time in our communities. This should also be family time. Remember, the children are watching.

We then need to represent our communities at the city, state and federal level. This is not someone else's responsibility. It is my responsibility to defend my family and community. Remember Haddasah(Ester). Maybe you have been placed here for a time such as this. This is also to be shared with family members. Remember, even if we don't mentor them, the children are watching.

As has been said, we get the government we deserve. Remember, the children are watching.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI