What do you think would result from a repeal of Roe v Wade?

[MagicNakor]

An increase in back-alley abortion clinics, and therefore an increase in the fatality rate from said procedures.

What prompted this one j2?

:shuriken:

[RioDeLeo]

A few more Republican votes?

[micolithe]

Massive amounts of appeals to the supreme court in an order to reinstate Roe V Wade, and then more appeals to repeal it again.

There's no winning for anyone on this one. It's a self-perpetuating cycle, no matter which side of the debate you're on.

[RPerry]

An increase in back-alley abortion clinics, and therefore an increase in the fatality rate from said procedures.

What prompted this one j2?

:shuriken:

Probably the bump of his " Surpreme Court Decisions poll "

as for my answer to the question, in agreement with MagicNakor and ReoDeLeo's answers, also an argument of what is and what is not " the right of privacy"

[vidcc]

I've heard a lot of spin from the activists on this. It's played up by the pro choice and down by the anti choice sides. Hard to take either side seriously.

I think the initial short term thing would be around 10-20 states banning abortion completely after reverting almost instantly to the statutes still "on the books" others would bring in restrictions such as bans on late term procedures but these will be harder to keep unless they allow for the procedure to take place for the sake of the mothers health, which has been a stumbling block in the past.
I'm not sure if the "back street" abortion issue will happen on any significant scale but it will happen in poor districts.

I think it's possible that there will be some political backlash but to what level I'm not sure. The reason I think this is because poll after poll suggests that about 60-70% don't think roe should be overturned. However probably only 30-40% are strongly opposed to overturning it and they probably don't vote republican anyway. Also the fact that we haven't seen any legislation make it through that would overrule it. This suggests that our lawmakers think that it may cost them votes.

Overturning roe will not be the end of the issue. On either side.
Pro choice will be fighting to give everyone equal rights to decide no matter what state they live in.
Anti freedom (made that up just for you j2 ;) ) will campaign to ban abortion at federal level. I'm affraid I find the "states rights" arguement unbelievable. It is about banning abortion, nothing else, ad if they can ban it at federal level they will not care about states rights.

Of course at this time in history a federal ban isn't likely. Even with our current theocratic government.

One thing I can say I think will happen is that the political divide we have already will be widened.

[Busyman]

An increase in back-alley abortion clinics, and therefore an increase in the fatality rate from said procedures.

What prompted this one j2?

:shuriken:

I have often noted many who willingly (or willy-nilly) engage the argument or jump to blindly defend the decision do so from a stance of being constitutionally uninformed, or possessing a willingness to ignore certain of the constitution's precepts in order to entertain more creative interpretations of it.

So to speak.

The short version is that many don't know the first thing about our Constitution, and/or have no patience with any other than their "favorite" parts of it.

This thread could be charitably described as an attempt to gauge the general level of understanding of our most important founding document.

I hope it is as interesting as I intend it to be, though my expectations are not high; everyone is inclined to think I'm only out to light fires with this particular subject.
..........especially when your own opinion is usually noticeably absent. :dry:

I would like a conservative challenged on this issue.

Are all abortions to be banned? If it murder then there can't be abortion based on an unhealthy baby. That's a perceived mercy killing. If your baby is unhealthy tough.

Got raped? Tough.
Incest? Tough.

To compromise, it throws their "life starts at conception so killing that life is murder" out the window.

If their are 5 conservative judges and a conservative congress, Roe/Wade will be repealed. It is too important to a theocratic government or should I say, a government that appears theocratic (in essence full of shit).

I like what someone else said...there will be numerous appeals and appeals of appeals.

The court is likely to have some weird rationale behind their decision just like it did in the original case.....one being the pursuit of liberty?

[Busyman]

I'm affraid I find the "states rights" arguement unbelievable. It is about banning abortion, nothing else, ad if they can ban it at federal level they will not care about states rights.

I think you are dead wrong, vid, and I hope you get the chance to see how wrong you are, about me in particular, and conservatives in general.

For purposes of this thread I will opine that I don't believe a repeal of Roe would result in back-alley abortions or anything of the sort.

I myself would be satisfied to never raise the subject again if the states were to (once-and-for-all) have the opportunity to decide for themselves what status abortion should have.

I could definitely get behind a constitutional ban on late-term abortion, as I find it especially abhorrent, but again, my primary concern is that we return to the Constitution as our exemplar.

Satisfied, B.?
No

[vidcc]

I'm affraid I find the "states rights" arguement unbelievable. It is about banning abortion, nothing else, ad if they can ban it at federal level they will not care about states rights.

I think you are dead wrong, vid, and I hope you get the chance to see how wrong you are, about me in particular, and conservatives in general.



I suppose that was a bit of a generalisation, I should have said "activists" at the end of "pro choice" and "anti freedom", because those are the ones "getting into it"

However if as you think the issue will end at overturning then I look forward to never having to listen to the likes of Tony Perkins on abortion again because if his state decides to allow it he will be happy with it as it's the state that decided it.

Personally I think roe v wade is correct because of my view on individual
freedoms.

[Busyman]

I think you are dead wrong, vid, and I hope you get the chance to see how wrong you are, about me in particular, and conservatives in general.



I suppose that was a bit of a generalisation, I should have said "activists" at the end of "pro choice" and "anti freedom", because those are the ones "getting into it"

However if as you think the issue will end at overturning then I look forward to never having to listen to the likes of Tony Perkins on abortion again because if his state decides to allow it he will be happy with it as it's the state that decided it.

Personally I think roe v wade is correct because of my view on individual
freedoms.
That is the crux of the argument.

Are you free to kill children? Is that a liberty that should be protected?

Then also, under what circumstances? In all circumstances?

[micolithe]

Personally I think roe v wade is correct because of my view on individual
freedoms.
That is the crux of the argument.

Are you free to kill children? Is that a liberty that should be protected?
And this is exactly what I meant by "this argument will have no winners, it will go on forever"

[3RA1N1AC]

Are you free to kill children? Is that a liberty that should be protected?
more importantly, when can we start arresting women who miscarry, for criminal neglect and manslaughter? they've been getting away with it for far too long.

[Busyman]

Are you free to kill children? Is that a liberty that should be protected?
more importantly, when can we start arresting women who miscarry, for criminal neglect and manslaughter? they've been getting away with it for far too long.
...and there are tons of ways to purposely miscarry. :shifty:

"You stand there and I will lightly.....kick you down the steps."

[vidcc]

That is the crux of the argument.

Are you free to kill children? Is that a liberty that should be protected?

Then also, under what circumstances? In all circumstances?
That's another debate as to when an egg becomes a living child

[Busyman]

That is the crux of the argument.

Are you free to kill children? Is that a liberty that should be protected?

Then also, under what circumstances? In all circumstances?
That's another debate as to when an egg becomes a living child
.......that is linked to what liberties one has.....

[vidcc]

That's another debate as to when an egg becomes a living child
.......that is linked to what liberties one has.....

my point is it's a different debate as to what will happen socially in the usa if roe was repealed to the debate about when life begins...and ends.

[vidcc]

As a citizen of Michigan, for example, I don't feel I have a right to dictate to the citizens of Wisconsin; my rights as a U.S. citizen do not trump theirs as citizens of their fair state.

Could you tell me who is obliged to get an abortion under R.V.W? This bit confuses me.

If the people of those states are all against abortion why are abortions taking place there?

[3RA1N1AC]

If the debate were effectively limited to the state where you live, you would, in relatively short order, arrive at the salient factology, rather than default to the myriad concerns of the country-at-large; easier, no?

One is left to ponder, as the citizen of one state, the efficacy, or entree, a citizen has to argue what particular circumstances should reign in neighboring states...

As a citizen of Michigan, for example, I don't feel I have a right to dictate to the citizens of Wisconsin; my rights as a U.S. citizen do not trump theirs as citizens of their fair state.
i reckon that if it came down to this, then we'd see a fair number of "women of minority opinion" (so to speak) promptly move to states that have voted to allow abortions.

that's in response to "what would the effects be, socially?" a sudden decrease in the female populations of anti-abortion states. impossible to say for sure, how much of a decrease it would be... but it makes sense to me, that SOME would feel strongly enough about the issue to move to a different state.

or, well... how does this work, as far as one state's treatment of another state's fetus? can people just drive across the state line, get an abortion, and come home? will they be arrested upon returning, because the fetus was under the jurisdiction of the state where the woman claims residence? or will the abortionist need to check and make sure the fetus isn't from an anti-abortion state? :unsure:

if states don't claim jurisdiction over resident fetuses, then it wouldn't seem there's very much being dictated to anyone, aside from "sorry, you can't do that in this state, but you can go to Nevada and do it..."

[RioDeLeo]

i reckon that if it came down to this, then we'd see a fair number of "women of minority opinion" (so to speak) promptly move to states that have voted to allow abortions.

Maybe an abortion "Las Vegas" will spring up in some God-forsaken desert somewhere, with hotels, casinos, wedding chapels and abortion clinics?

[vidcc]

If the people of those states are all against abortion why are abortions taking place there?

How utterly disingenuous of you, vid.

Okay.

Two can play that game.

Abortions are sought in places where the majority of the populace are against the practice because the Supreme Court usurped their societal (not INDIVIDUAL) right and obligation to self-determination.

Your move.

I wasn't being disingenuous I was posing simplistic argument. I am well aware you believe roe was wrongly decided and that you think it should be up to a "local vote" as to how people run their private lives.

It appears your answer is that abortions take place because they are "allowed" and not because there is a "demand".

you conveniently removed the bit that went with it


Could you tell me who is obliged to get an abortion under R.V.W? This bit confuses me.

A woman getting an abortion in your state is not infringing on your liberties, in fact you wouldn't even know it happened unless you stand outside the clinic taking names and medical records. So to me your disapproval should be only that. If people were being forced to have abortions it would be a different matter.

Its a medical matter and as such no business of anyone but the patient and doctor.
I realise you may raise the issue of state laws protecting unborn children but then that will be a different debate as I already pointed out about when life begins and ends.

Your opinion is that roe was wrongly (by 7-2) decided.... my opinion is that it was correct.

[Busyman]

How utterly disingenuous of you, vid.

Okay.

Two can play that game.

Abortions are sought in places where the majority of the populace are against the practice because the Supreme Court usurped their societal (not INDIVIDUAL) right and obligation to self-determination.

Your move.
A woman getting an abortion in your state is not infringing on your liberties, in fact you wouldn't even know it happened unless you stand outside the clinic taking names and medical records. So to me your disapproval should be only that. If people were being forced to have abortions it would be a different matter.

Checkmate.

[Rat Faced]

:01: :01:

Game, Set and Match to vidcc

[vidcc]

Then by what process do we decide what law, if any, we are to abide by?

With roe v wade the dispute is what has priority. the dispute is which has priority ..state self determination or personal liberties as a US citizen under the US constitution. (simplified and assuming no dispute that the US constitution applies as ruled) You feel that the states in this case should preside. That is your interpretation but not the interpretation the justices made. (are they not Americans?)
So there is the crux...two people can read different meaning into the same sentence. So we need an independent supreme court to rule when disputes arise. I would say not just independent but balance to represent all Americans, not favour one side. We should not have a conservative court or a liberal court but something in between. This does not mean that I object to an extreme right winger or left winger on the court but if we have one we have to have an opposite to balance it out...then the remaining centrist can prevent the stalemate.

So in summation it is quite correct to say you want justices that will strictly interpret the constitution, but they may strictly interpret it in a way you don't agree with.

If the solons in which you place so much trust decide that any old Joe with a plan to make money which would also (by the way) result in an increase in tax revenue (no means-testing there; did you notice?) benefit by a drastic expansion of the principle of eminent domain, in turn enabling that person or entity to divest you of your domicile and the land upon which it rests for "fair market value"...oh, wait-they just did that, didn't they?

Would you feel better to have had some input on that one, vid?

I thought we already addressed this one. But aside from that, are you suggesting that I should change my mind on the Roe issue because I disagree with this one? :huh:


I said I disagreed with it . I always thought it should be purely for things like roads or dams where there was no real alternative. But apparently the wording of the law was not specific and a case was made.

Have you heard someone is trying to build a hotel on a judges land using eminent domain?

So what needs to happen is our lawmakers should quickly address the issue to make it clear what limits apply when it comes to "public benefit". A vote winner I think you will agree and something that would pass with overwhelming support......
But I feel you are using this case to make me feel the way you feel about Roe. I'm afraid even though I abhor the ruling I don't. Or perhaps you are trying to make me agree that we have justices making things up.

You concede once again that your understanding of this country and it's constitution is marginal-this country was meant to be what "We The People" make it, NOT the nine justices.

I concede nothing :blink:

So what do you suggest? Short of abolishing the supreme court (I doubt you could agree to that "constitutionally") the only way the constitution is going to be ruled strictly to your own interpretation is to have only judges like yourself. Would that be representative of "We The People" ?

Edit:

With roe v wade the dispute is what has priority. Individual states or the constitution of the USA (take dispute out as to if the constitution applies) You feel that the states in this case should preside. That is your interpretation but not the interpretation the justices made. (are they not Americans?)

Reading this makes no sense and isn't what I meant to say...the dispute is which has priority ..state self determination or personal liberties as a US citizen under the US constitution. (simplified)

[Busyman]

Then by what process do we decide what law, if any, we are to abide by?

If the solons in which you place so much trust decide that any old Joe with a plan to make money which would also (by the way) result in an increase in tax revenue (no means-testing there; did you notice?) benefit by a drastic expansion of the principle of eminent domain, in turn enabling that person or entity to divest you of your domicile and the land upon which it rests for "fair market value"...oh, wait-they just did that, didn't they?

Would you feel better to have had some input on that one, vid?

You concede once again that your understanding of this country and it's constitution is marginal-this country was meant to be what "We The People" make it, NOT the nine justices.

Your checkmate is forfeit.
Actually that particular checkmate was quite valid. However, in regards to the Supreme Court ruling (eminent domain), they were flat-out wrong and actually went against the Constitution. The ruling made essentially made the public/private use debate moot..since anything that may return higher (even $5) tax revenue can get a pass. ((off-topic)thus, as I have many time pointed out, making more haves and have nots thus leading to the world ending in shit :D )

Two different arguments though. :dry:

You are arguing an up or down vote by the majority of the people versus a court saying what is or wrong.

Majority of people (who include the courts) are idiots.

If your entire state wanted outlaw wearing red, it doesn't mean in all cases your state should be able to enforce it as law.

Then again, we come back to the "majority of idiots" argument........

[vidcc]

Vid:

I believe a constructionist will always make the best, least-biased candidate because his/her imperative is to hew as closely to the word of the document, rather than to consider his/her first duty to bend, flex, expand or otherwise mutilate their meaning in order to "grow" fundamental rights.

Bullshit works well for nourishing plant life; it has no place in the judicial process.


Like I said different people view that word in different ways....not always the same way you do.
Given that the document isn't just one part there will always be disputes over not just the word but also which part has priority.

[Busyman]

Actually that particular checkmate was quite valid. However, in regards to the Supreme Court ruling (eminent domain), they were flat-out wrong and actually went against the Constitution.

Ah.

Most of you don't normally seem to think it is even possible for the Supreme Court to exceed it's purview or be wrong.

My overriding point (and I thank you for enabling me to clarify) has always been that the Court is activist.

I think that going "against" the Constitution qualifies; do you think otherwise?

Vid:

I believe a constructionist will always make the best, least-biased candidate because his/her imperative is to hew as closely to the word of the document, rather than to consider his/her first duty to bend, flex, expand or otherwise mutilate their meaning in order to "grow" fundamental rights.

Bullshit works well for nourishing plant life; it has no place in the judicial process.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Checkmate on those points. However, I don't think anyone was necessarily refuting them.

The court is activist. The court is human and will be even if a constructionist takes a vacancy.

The very valid point of yours comes in when referring to the Constitution. All decisions by the court should be based on this (and I think have been)....but in the eminent domain ruling, for instance, it was using the Constitution for it's ruling. :huh:

I didn't know private reaallly meant public. :blink:

Can't you feel those extra tax dollars helping you?....Can ya feel it? HUH? hUH? :frusty:

[Busyman]

Vid:

I believe a constructionist will always make the best, least-biased candidate because his/her imperative is to hew as closely to the word of the document, rather than to consider his/her first duty to bend, flex, expand or otherwise mutilate their meaning in order to "grow" fundamental rights.

Bullshit works well for nourishing plant life; it has no place in the judicial process.


Like I said different people view that word in different ways....not always the same way you do.
Given that the document isn't just one part there will always be disputes over not just the word but also which part has priority.
I want my Constitution non-denominational please. :snooty:

[vidcc]

I want my Constitution non-denominational please. :snooty:

The right wing conservatives don't :angry:

[Busyman]

The right wing conservatives don't :angry:

Please expand/expound/illuminate... :huh:
Or, vid, break out that dusty ole thesaurus and find another word for explain. :ermm:

[vidcc]

The right wing conservatives don't :angry:

Please expand/expound/illuminate... :huh:

I thought I was the one that's supposed to be disingenuous :rolleyes: (and i do realise you'll hate the usage)

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/2376/dw016wp.gif ;)

[vidcc]

Please expand/expound/illuminate... :huh:
Or, vid, break out that dusty ole thesaurus and find another word for explain. :ermm:


That's twice you made me smile in one thread. :wacko:

[Busyman]

I don't think any state would actually outlaw abortion, at least not at this late date.

There would surely be some qualifiers here and there, aimed toward fostering responsible sexual behavior and (I think) almost a blanket ban on the partial-birth version.

In the main, though, the availability of the "service" would continue largely as it has.

Who knows, some locales may, given an unfettered process, make abortion mandatory... :huh:
Bullshit. :dry:

However, I don't like the fact my fucking HMO covers unnecessary abortions, meaning "she had a wild night and wants to get rid of it."

"There's a vacuum cleaner waiting for you in the back room. Just pay this $5 copayment." :dry: