Parallel Roe v. Wade thread: do you agree with the decision itself (not the OUTCOME)

[glenn1]

I believe there are many out there who likely believe as I do, that no matter how much we agree with the outcome of the Roe v. Wade decision (whether a lot or a little and regardless of why) still disagree with the process and legal reasoning of how the decision was reached.

 

[nageov3t]

while I don't necessarily agree with the original RvW ddecision, I think that at this point, overturning it would be pretty bad for the country.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: glenn1
I believe there are many out there who likely believe as I do, that no matter how much we agree with the outcome of the Roe v. Wade decision (whether a lot or a little and regardless of why) still disagree with the process and legal reasoning of how the decision was reached.

care to share your reasons why?

 

[rchiu]

what's ironic is that Jane Roe who sued for the right to abortion does not agree with the outcome now, and is a member of the pro-life movement, and claiming she was just the pawn of the attrony who brought the case to the trial.

Quote from wikipedia: Link to wikipedia

"Jane Roe" switches sides

In an interesting turn of events, "Jane Roe," whose real name is Norma McCorvey, became a member of the pro-life movement following her conversion to Christianity, and now fights to make abortion illegal. In a press conference held on January 18, 2005, McCorvey claimed that she was the "pawn" of the ambitious Weddington, who was looking for a plaintiff to challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion. Using her prerogative as a party to the original litigation, she sought to reopen the case in a U.S. District Court in Texas and have it overturned. See McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F3d 846 (5th Cir 2004). Her new stance is based on claims made since the decision, claiming evidence of emotional and other harm suffered by many women who have had abortions, and increased resources for the care of unwanted children. On June 19, 2003, Judge David Godbey ruled that the motion was not made within a "reasonable time." On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court refused to grant a writ of certiorari, ending McCorvey's appeal.

 

[Cerb]

Poll question 2: which part of the outcome are you asking about?

 

[fierydemise]

for the last poll question there needs to be an option for "Depending on the decision" I'd take abortion with a few restrictions but not a blanket ban, it really depends

 

[glenn1]

Interesting but not suprising that those who support Roe think it's so important that they're willing to state openly by a 7-1 margin that they'd bypass democratic processes in order to keep the "right" alive. After all, why trust the people when those whom you'd rule might not act the way you want them to. What pathetic zealots. I'm ashamed to have once served in the military to have defended little dictatorial bigots like you, and don't ever want to hear any of you utter the words "freedom" or such again.

 

[Cerb]

OK, you put up a loaded poll, and then complain when your own biased opinion of a seriously biased poll does not match your wants? Yeah, no zealotry there.

 

[glenn1]

OK, you put up a loaded poll, and then complain when your own biased opinion of a seriously biased poll does not match your wants? Yeah, no zealotry there.

How the fvck is it loaded? It's a binary question with selections for several shades of support on either side to further refine the answer. Or is it because it doesn't bow down to your pre-ordained wisdom of protecting the stupid masses for their own good?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: glenn1

OK, you put up a loaded poll, and then complain when your own biased opinion of a seriously biased poll does not match your wants? Yeah, no zealotry there.

How the fvck is it loaded? It's a binary question with selections for several shades of support on either side to further refine the answer. Or is it because it doesn't bow down to your pre-ordained wisdom of protecting the stupid masses for their own good?

No, it's loaded because it combines different subjects in the same questions, and adds slant to options. I see you complaining that the results don't fit your own 'pre-ordained wisdom', without even trying to think about, or ask, why that might be; instead going straight into insulting those who voted in the poll, which is basically flamebaiting.

#1: straight-forward
#2: what part of the outcome? That it is legal in the whole US to have abortions, or that it is the job of the federal government to deal with such issues above the states? (edit: there could be more, too)
#3: fine
#4: where's the option about believing there is an implied right to privacy there, but disagreeing with its use for RvW (note: your option specifically says N/A for RvW)?
#5: "it's too important to allow to be returned to the states determined where the conservatives would rig the election to outlaw it", "I completely disagree with the decision and want the court to reverse the decision, it's too important to allow to be returned to the states determined where the liberals would rig the election to legalize it"
#6: fine.
#7: fine.
#8: "I'd probably have to create a mental block to avoid thinking about it", "I'd probably go into a deep depression until the next time it came up for election", "no, I'd have to move to Holland"
The first two quoted basically seem the same, and do not actually respond. I used the last, just because it was amusing.