• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Roe vs Wade to be overturned?

M

Mill

Lifer
I saw something about this on the news tonight. One of the original petitioners wants it overturned? Anyone have details?
 
Originally posted by: Millennium
I saw something about this on the news tonight. One of the original petitioners wants it overturned? Anyone have details?
Click to expand...

Roe has changed her mind and would not like to see it overturned. I dont see that happening anytime soon.
 
The case was incorrectly decided and should be overturned.

The right to abortion is not a (federal) constitutional right but the ability to grant or deny such a right should be reserved to the states.

jeremy806
 
Originally posted by: jeremy806
The case was incorrectly decided and should be overturned.

The right to abortion is not a (federal) constitutional right but the ability to grant or deny such a right should be reserved to the states.

jeremy806
Click to expand...

that is your opinion, of course.
 
To start the flames off nice and toasty... I will give my personal opinion. I am ethically and morally opposed to abortion. I have seen how it destroys lives. I do, however, believe the states should have the right to determine the legality of it, and not the federal government. I don't think it should be illegal, but I fail to see why anyone wants to go through that pain, unless their own health is in danger.

Those are my thoughts. Do not argue with me because you WILL NOT change my mind, and I will not change yours. Fair enough.
 
Originally posted by: jeremy806
The case was incorrectly decided and should be overturned.

The right to abortion is not a (federal) constitutional right but the ability to grant or deny such a right should be reserved to the states.

jeremy806
Click to expand...


Out of genuine curiosity, if abortion rights were a state issue what if a woman who conceived in a state that forbade abortion went across the border into the neighboring state, had an abortion and then returned home. Could she be prosecuted in her home state?

 
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Originally posted by: jeremy806
The case was incorrectly decided and should be overturned.

The right to abortion is not a (federal) constitutional right but the ability to grant or deny such a right should be reserved to the states.

jeremy806
Click to expand...


Out of genuine curiosity, if abortion rights were a state issue what if a woman who conceived in a state that forbade abortion went across the border into the neighboring state, had an abortion and then returned home. Could she be prosecuted in her home state?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter. The act would not matter, because it didn't occur in her state. The US government can't prosecute me for stealing a loaf of bread and beating a frenchman to death with it in France.
 
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Originally posted by: jeremy806
The case was incorrectly decided and should be overturned.

The right to abortion is not a (federal) constitutional right but the ability to grant or deny such a right should be reserved to the states.

jeremy806
Click to expand...


Out of genuine curiosity, if abortion rights were a state issue what if a woman who conceived in a state that forbade abortion went across the border into the neighboring state, had an abortion and then returned home. Could she be prosecuted in her home state?
Click to expand...

No. A state cannot prosecute for something committed outside its borders.
 
Hey TheShiz, you state that it is my opinion...

It is more than my opinion... tell me where exactly you find a guaranteed right to abortion in the federal constitution. Plain and simple - there is not one.

And for that reason, the ability to grant these legal rights (and all other rights that the federal government does not have the power to regulate) are reserved to the states.

Plain and simple - it is a state law issue. People that have strong opinions on the subject can go live in states that have laws that are consistant with their personal beliefs. Pro-life? Go live in a pro-life state. Pro-choice? Go find a pro-choice state.

Lastly, it's a horrible thing that I wish was not legal anywhere, but from a legal standpoint, it's a state law issue.

jeremy806

 
Originally posted by: zantac
I like the 'ethical' pro-life people that are anti-abortion, but pro-death penalty. They make me laugh.
Click to expand...

I like how people want innocent babies put to death, but want murderers to roam free. Was that toasty enough for you? I think the bigger problem is those who are anti-death penalty, but pro-abortion. How does that work out? One is an innocent human, and the other is a POS. Lets save the POS!
rolleye.gif
 
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: zantac
I like the 'ethical' pro-life people that are anti-abortion, but pro-death penalty. They make me laugh.
Click to expand...

I like how people want innocent babies put to death, but want murderers to roam free. Was that toasty enough for you? I think the bigger problem is those who are anti-death penalty, but pro-abortion. How does that work out? One is an innocent human, and the other is a POS. Lets save the POS!
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...

that would be true if i were 'pro-life' since it would be hypocritical to want one to live and one to die, but i am not. I am pro choice. Give the murderer a chance to live and die in prison, and a mother the right to choose what is right for her.

edit: i do not want babies to die, however, i do want people to have rights to choose what is right for them. I do not want the states to kill prisoners in my name.

edit#2, my observation didnt say whether or not i was for or against abortion, just that most people that claim to be 'pro-life' do not practice what they preach
 
Originally posted by: jeremy806
Hey TheShiz, you state that it is my opinion...

It is more than my opinion... tell me where exactly you find a guaranteed right to abortion in the federal constitution. Plain and simple - there is not one.

And for that reason, the ability to grant these legal rights (and all other rights that the federal government does not have the power to regulate) are reserved to the states.

Plain and simple - it is a state law issue. People that have strong opinions on the subject can go live in states that have laws that are consistant with their personal beliefs. Pro-life? Go live in a pro-life state. Pro-choice? Go find a pro-choice state.

Lastly, it's a horrible thing that I wish was not legal anywhere, but from a legal standpoint, it's a state law issue.

jeremy806
Click to expand...


A right does not have to be in the Constitution for the people to have it (Amendment 9).

However, you are correct in that abortion is outside of federal jurisdiction.
 
... but from a legal standpoint, it's a state law issue.
Click to expand...
Out of curiousity, do you also agree that Oregon should be allowed to apply its "right to die" law without interference from John Ashcroft? And California's law for medical marijuana use should be allowed as well?

I'm not attacking you, just curious whether you're more consistent in holding to your states-rights beliefs than this administration seems to be.
 
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
... but from a legal standpoint, it's a state law issue.
Click to expand...
Out of curiousity, do you also agree that Oregon should be allowed to apply its "right to die" law without interference from John Ashcroft? And California's law for medical marijuana use should be allowed as well?

I'm not attacking you, just curious whether you're more consistent in holding to your states-rights beliefs than this administration seems to be.
Click to expand...

I believe both should be allowed, but I guess your question wasn't directed to me.
 
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
... but from a legal standpoint, it's a state law issue.
Click to expand...
Out of curiousity, do you also agree that Oregon should be allowed to apply its "right to die" law without interference from John Ashcroft? And California's law for medical marijuana use should be allowed as well?

I'm not attacking you, just curious whether you're more consistent in holding to your states-rights beliefs than this administration seems to be.
Click to expand...

I believe both should be allowed, but I guess your question wasn't directed to me.
Click to expand...

Me too. And if the federal government followed its own laws, they would be allowed.
 
From a legal viewpoint only... I believe the equal protection clause of the 14th does make it a federal issue. It applies to the equal protection of the fetus and should be uniform across the states.

From a societal viewpoint only... the fetus is simply part of the woman until it becomes viable and at that point becomes an indivdual life form (assume human) until birth occurs and then (assume born in US) becomes a citizen.

From a personal point of view only... the fetus is life created through the union of egg and sperm with great potential. To destroy this potential without just cause (life of mother or non consentual union) is wrong for me and my equally 'yoked' partner. The synthetic union (test tube, petrie dish etc.) is wrong for me and my equally 'yoked' partner.
 
if they overtune it they might as well overturn their partisan 2000 election decision. their worst mistake ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top