Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 If states want to ban it, they need to prove a baby has constitutional rights before it is born (such as the reasonable chance to survive outside the womb, I would suppose). Otherwise, they would be restricting the mother's right to privacy, which they're not allowed to do. Somewhere in between there, there is a period where the mother's right to privacy is in conflict with the baby's right to live (for this argument, I would say a baby that can live outside the womb), and that line is shifting as medical science progresses. Not a simple task, crafting a law that incorporates all of that. Add in congenital birth defects, and it gets more complicated. 387597[/snapback] You seem to want the states to decide, but you say that they need to prove that a baby has constitutional rights. Shouldn't proving "constitutional rights" be a federal issue? I don't like the idea of 50 different opinions on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 You seem to want the states to decide, but you say that they need to prove that a baby has constitutional rights. Shouldn't proving "constitutional rights" be a federal issue? I don't like the idea of 50 different opinions on the issue. 387634[/snapback] They talk with a forked tongue. The pro life crowd won't settle for anything but a national ban on all abortions. The states' right thing is a smokescreen. It always has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 If they outlaw abortion, it will continue to happen. Whoopie. There are ALOT more pressing problems facing our society than Mary Jane Rotten Crotch and Freddie Joe Mouth Breather not being savvy enough to use the plethora of birth control choices available. But let's waste valuable coin and time worrying about such things. 387179[/snapback] I agree that its a no-win situation, but unfortunately the Christian right seems to hink its worth spending that time thinking about it, and the liberal left is all about rights, so politicians are just playing to what people already think. Its not what the politicians want as so much as what the electorate wants to talk about. I agree that its overplayed, but it does effect millions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 You take " can I have my 3 minutes back" as a personal insult??? 387600[/snapback] I thought it was.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 It is a states rights thing. The 10th Amendment , the one at the bottom of the Bill of Rights, which is ignored today, states : The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This also includes setting the drinking age, speed limits and many other things which the federal judicial and executive branches have siezed from the states. Show me where in the Constitution there is a right of privacy. It was made up of whole cloth in the Griswold decision in the 60's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 and the liberal left is all about rights387683[/snapback] You mean the right to kill a defenseless child, not the right to use a firearm to protect yourself or family, correct? Try pragmatism, people. It's wicked cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 You mean the right to kill a defenseless child, not the right to use a firearm to protect yourself or family, correct? Try pragmatism, people. It's wicked cool. 387757[/snapback] Excuse me while I rephrase: Minority (gender or race specific) rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 22, 2005 Author Share Posted July 22, 2005 It is a states rights thing. The 10th Amendment , the one at the bottom of the Bill of Rights, which is ignored today, states : The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This also includes setting the drinking age, speed limits and many other things which the federal judicial and executive branches have siezed from the states. Show me where in the Constitution there is a right of privacy. It was made up of whole cloth in the Griswold decision in the 60's. 387740[/snapback] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under Roe, it is "the people" who decide for themselves whether to have or not to have an abortion. If your position is that the federal government should not make this decision for us, that the states should decide, why stop there? Why not go one step further and say that "the people" should decide for themselves? Why is the paternalism of a State government more acceptable to you than the paternalism of the federal government. Under current law, no one who is against abortion is required to have one and no one who wants one, with certain restrictions, is prevented from having one. This will not be left up to the states in any event. If Roe goes down, Congress will trip overthemselves to pass the "Protection of Babies Act" which will override any state law on the issue. The only way that might be prevented absent Roe is a filibuster in the Senate and we know what will happen to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 22, 2005 Author Share Posted July 22, 2005 They talk with a forked tongue. The pro life crowd won't settle for anything but a national ban on all abortions. The states' right thing is a smokescreen. It always has been. 387661[/snapback] You've got that right. Look on the bright side though, the mob has been really struggling lately and this will give them a whole new business to get into ala prohibition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 I thought it was.. 387708[/snapback] Really? Personal? Insult maybe, but personal, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 ...As for the impact of that, a 5-4 opinion is not as strong as a 9-0 opinion which is what the vote in Roe was. The vote in Roe V Wade was 7-2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 The most important question I have for you is why is it preferable to you for states to decide for themselves whether abortion should be legal? It's not that I prefer the states do anything; I believe the Roe V Wade decision was flawed, and should be overturned. I'm just being realistic in that this would have the immediate effect of launching who knows how many different bills in Congress and in the State legislatures trying to find a way to craft a law that protects the individual rights of the mother (from one direction), and determine what, if any, rights an unborn child may have (from the other). I personally believe an total ban on abortion, as well as abortion on demand at any time will both prove to be unconstitutional. I think the only possible answer is somewhere in the middle, and I don't know exactly where that would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 You seem to want the states to decide, but you say that they need to prove that a baby has constitutional rights. Shouldn't proving "constitutional rights" be a federal issue? I don't like the idea of 50 different opinions on the issue. Again, not that I want the states to decide - it's a very difficult issue, and I don't mind getting more opinions/ideas on how best to solve it. Any new state law of any kind on abortion will be challenged immediately and appealed up the chain; 50 different opinions will last only as long as it takes for the SC to hear the arguments on the first few that make their way there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 They talk with a forked tongue. The pro life crowd won't settle for anything but a national ban on all abortions. The states' right thing is a smokescreen. It always has been. I think I've been clear in my opinion. It's pretty ill-mannered to call me a liar when I've been as honest as I can. It's been my experience that people who think abortion should be illegal will tell you so. If you think everyone has a hidden agenda, you can just avoid all conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 They talk with a forked tongue. The pro life crowd won't settle for anything but a national ban on all abortions. The states' right thing is a smokescreen. It always has been. You've got that right. Look on the bright side though, the mob has been really struggling lately and this will give them a whole new business to get into ala prohibition. Oh, I'm sorry - I mistook you for someone who wanted to have an intelligent discussion without the BS. Well, I guess both of you guys can KMA then. So much for this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 I think I've been clear in my opinion. It's pretty ill-mannered to call me a liar when I've been as honest as I can. It's been my experience that people who think abortion should be illegal will tell you so. If you think everyone has a hidden agenda, you can just avoid all conversation. 388597[/snapback] Shouldn't "when life begins" be a federal issue? I didn't think I was being ill-mannered. I wasn't calling you a liar... Maybe a person in denial? IMHO, I see it as a smokescreen. Why on earth would anybody want 50 different decisions? The next logical step would be a total ban. It is really baby-steps. No pun intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 24, 2005 Author Share Posted July 24, 2005 It's not that I prefer the states do anything; I believe the Roe V Wade decision was flawed, and should be overturned. I'm just being realistic in that this would have the immediate effect of launching who knows how many different bills in Congress and in the State legislatures trying to find a way to craft a law that protects the individual rights of the mother (from one direction), and determine what, if any, rights an unborn child may have (from the other). I personally believe an total ban on abortion, as well as abortion on demand at any time will both prove to be unconstitutional. I think the only possible answer is somewhere in the middle, and I don't know exactly where that would be. 388586[/snapback] I believe your exact words were: "I think it should be overturned, and the issue left to the states" Did I get that wrong? If not, I'll ask again, why do you think the issue should be left to the states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 24, 2005 Author Share Posted July 24, 2005 Oh, I'm sorry - I mistook you for someone who wanted to have an intelligent discussion without the BS. Well, I guess both of you guys can KMA then. So much for this thread. 388599[/snapback] Well first of all, I think Exiled was referring in general to those whom he believes are using states rights as a false front. He used the word "they" and was replying to someone elses post. I don't see why you think he is calling you a liar. Second, I was exchanging a little humor with Exiled about what would happen to the practice of abortion in a post Roe world such as black markets and the mob. Do you think abortions will stop if made illegal? No? I thought not. Is it unreasonable to assume that someone is going to make a load of cash from illegal abortions? If you are this determined to be offended and self righteous, find someone elses posts to over react to. You are clearly spoiling for a fight tender man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBusBillsFan Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 If they outlaw abortion, it will continue to happen. Whoopie. There are ALOT more pressing problems facing our society than Mary Jane Rotten Crotch and Freddie Joe Mouth Breather not being savvy enough to use the plethora of birth control choices available. But let's waste valuable coin and time worrying about such things. I couldn't agree more. And there are a lot of studies the directly relate abortions to education. The less or worse the education a woman has, the more likely she is to have an abortion. So, why don't we do something like...oh I don't know...help out our poor school districts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 I couldn't agree more. And there are a lot of studies the directly relate abortions to education. The less or worse the education a woman has, the more likely she is to have an abortion. So, why don't we do something like...oh I don't know...help out our poor school districts. 389097[/snapback] Good point but that wouldn't fire up voters on either side nor inspire them to send buku dollars into the 700 Club or to re-elect Senator Whosit. It is a huge money-maker for the Republican party, less so for the Democrats. Yeah, the Dems. get some voters and cash for it but no where near the fountain of support that rains down on the Republicans for this issue. Abortion is a critical issue to many, many people. Whether it should be or should not be is an interesting academic question to debate at the next social but the plaint fact is that this issue is the issue for enough voters to keep it atop the hit parade for a long time to come. If you project where the laws might go on this over the next 5 years, it clearly is just going to go on commanding lots and lots of political attention. It could be made illegal nationally which will lead to protests up the ying yang in California and New York and other places. I can see doctors performing them and then going to jail. I can see the occasional report of a young woman dying after having a black market abortion. I can see illegal sales of RU-486 or whatever that "moring after" pill is called going through the roof. Maybe they throw it to the states and you have the Balkanization of reproductive law with it legal in one state and illegal in another. Imagine a Doc. going from Virginia where it is illegal to Maryland where it is legal two days each week to perform abortions at a clinic in Baltimore. I could see that Doc. getting arrested in Virginia when he crosses border. The possible craziness that could erupt is mind boggling. Perhaps in paradise this issue would not be a hot button one garnering lots of attention but here on reality street, it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts