Roe v. Wade

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Friday, June 29. 2018

The Examiner opines Overturn Roe v. Wade.

Much as I detest the idea of abortion (it is killing, of course), I also detest the notion that the Constitution confers limited rights on individuals. It was not meant to do so. It was designed to confer limited powers to government.

What's your view?

Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 12:37 | Comments (24) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

If repealing Roe v. Wade meant that decisions to abort a fetus were sent back to each individual state to decide on their legality, and if it obviated the possibility of using tax payer funds for such a procedure, then I would be for it.

#1 Verde on 2018-06-29 12:45 (Reply)

I'd rather abortion be taken out of government entirely and left to individuals, their families and their health care providers.

Certainly no tax dollars to go toward supporting it unless it's part of a treatment to save a woman's life.

#1.1 erp on 2018-06-29 13:11 (Reply)

Another sane comment from the denizens of Maggie's Farm. I don't think I've ever heard the issue expressed so clearly and succinctly. Thank you "erp".

#1.1.1 Michael Smith on 2018-06-29 13:28 (Reply)

It is rarely used to save a woman's life. But it is often excused so that if necessary it could be used to save a woman's life. 99.999% of abortions are simply convenience and have nothing to do with physical health.

I would prefer that states handle this because in spite of what the Supremes found in the small print the constitution is silent on this issue.

It is murder of a baby. Possibly acceptable in the first 3 months but gruesome and dastardly after that especially partial birth abortion. Is it moral and ethical either for a doctor or the parents? That is the question that the pro-abortion people refuse to answer or choose to prevaricate on.

#1.1.1.1 Anon on 2018-06-29 14:13 (Reply)

I know for sure that if they could see into the future, at the moment it's born both parents suddenly fall in love with become a fierce protector of their child, that very same unique child they could easily have terminated a few months earlier.

In Michael Chabon's new book he says, "From the minute the first baby pops out, it's, "I love it. It's both conscious and unconscious at the same time."

#1.1.1.1.1 LP on 2018-07-01 16:15 (Reply)

Abortion is killing the most innocent of people who can't complain. It is essentially unnecessary since pregnancy can be prevented with very inexpensive methods. Women who do get pregnant can give up their babies for adoption.

The argument for abortion is that it is a matter of a woman's control over her body. The problem is that the baby is not part of her body. It is another body inside her body.

For those reasons, I am opposed to abortion in virtually every case. If an abortion is required for the physical health of the mother, I would support that but I think that is exceedingly rare.

If there is to be a more generalized abortion "right", it should be a state decision.

In other Western Democracies, abortion has been voted on and thus it the issue is diffused.

#2 mudbug on 2018-06-29 13:37 (Reply)

1) Abortion is murder. It is the killing of another human being. That must be acknowledged.

2) There are medical reasons for an abortion, which should remain.

3) Abortions should be done in hospital setting or at least a clinic with admitting privileges and inspections.

4) Most Americans agree that a 20-week limit on abortion is acceptable.

5) Work toward fewer abortions by supporting pregnancy centers. Many young, poor women are having abortions because they believe 'they can't afford a child' or a 'child would get in their way.' This is the saddest reason for abortion. Give women a chance to see that there are options besides abortion: adoption, services that will help young mothers, etc.

There are more ideas, but these are the ones I have. Abortion doesn't have to be an 'all or nothing' argument.

#3 MissT on 2018-06-29 14:02 (Reply)

Is a fetus a clump of cells to be removed from the body as cancer or other unwanted growth would be? Or is it a baby, a unique human being in development, waiting to be born?

I lean towards the a unique human being, waiting to be born and take it's place in the world. Making abortion akin to infanticide, just before the baby is born rather than after.

I'm perfectly OK with any kind of birth control. But in the words of a POTUS who didn't actually mean them, abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. With emphasis on the rare. Every European nation has restriction on abortion that would fail (or similar restrictions have failed) in our court system. Every European nation. From wikipedia- Abortion in France is legal on demand up to 12 weeks after conception (14 weeks after the last menstrual period).[1] Abortions at later stages of pregnancy are allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable Googling (nation) abortion laws and you'll see that the justices who think foreign law should be used as guidance for interpreting our Constitution would never ever EVER use that guidance in abortion laws.

#4 gospace on 2018-06-29 14:15 (Reply)

"
Is a fetus a clump of cells to be removed from the body as cancer or other unwanted growth would be? Or is it a baby, a unique human being in development, waiting to be born?
"
That's the question (or pair of questions) nobody seems to want to examine. Solve that equation to its' obvious conclusion, and all the rest falls neatly into place.

#4.1 Tom A (Link) on 2018-06-29 16:27 (Reply)

Legal or not, an abortion is an act of human sacrifice - the unborn child is sacrificed for the benefit of the mother.

The issue is moral and cultural first and foremost. I never really comprehended this issue until it was presented to me in this way.

And, unfortunately, it is the bedrock power of the left; it signals that they have the power of life and death in their hands, not God's.

#5 Terry Baker on 2018-06-29 14:34 (Reply)

Neither abortion, affirmative action, or gay marriage belonged, as policies or law, to the federal government. Only the living, breathing Constitution of the judiciary made it so.

#6 indyjonesouthere on 2018-06-29 17:01 (Reply)

>I also detest the notion that the Constitution confers
> limited rights on individuals. It was not meant to do so.

This is my understanding as well--that the constitution does not confer rights. It enumerates certain pre-existing rights, but does not grant, give, or create any.

> It was designed to confer limited powers to government.
> What's your view?

It was designed to organize and set the boundaries of the federal government. The bill of rights enumerated certain rights and placed them off limits to the federal government (and via the 14th the states), at least until the SCOTUS came up with the various levels of scrutiny that allow all sorts of shenanigans.

#7 William O. B'Livion on 2018-06-29 17:33 (Reply)

I have no problem with the court "invented" right to privacy. That it's not mentioned in the Constitution doesn't matter. The fact that it's not mentioned in fact means that there is one. I just don't think it stretches to killing babies.

#8 Randy on 2018-06-29 20:08 (Reply)

In most of the EU , abortion is outlawed after 20 weeks unless the life or health of the mother is in jeopardy . I think the sole exception is France where there are no limitations .

The left is constantly telling us that we need to be more like the EU , but when legislation was proposed almost identical to the EU stance , the Left screamed bloody murder .

As the Left constantly harps that there are limits to 2A rights , I think a second look at Roe may also come to the conclusion that there are limitations to abortion .

#9 Al (Link) on 2018-06-29 20:30 (Reply)

On abortion, I draw the line at 15 weeks, roughly the time when the fetus grows a cerebrum and is therefore intelligent enough to be a moral agent, a person. Thus I'm closer to pro-choice than pro-life but not exactly either.

As far as the Court making up the right to an abortion, that's a harder call. The 10th Amendment says that there are some individual rights not listed in the Bill of Rights (thus complementing the 9th which makes clear that there are NO federal powers not listed in the Constitution).

It would be nice if the courts, if not Congress, were to make abortions less necessary by seeing to it that teenagers in all states are both taught about contraception and given access to it, because they're going to do things whether Mom and Dad want them to or not. It's human nature. The teen pregnancy rates demonstrate this, and show the effect of real sex education vs "abstinence only" programs.

#10 jdgalt on 2018-06-29 20:37 (Reply)

I look forward to you reconciling those snippets of conflicting instinct with a single, coherent conscious morality.

#10.1 Meh on 2018-06-30 06:46 (Reply)

There's the story that when the delegates emerged from the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked what sort of government we were to have and his reply was "A Republic - if you can keep it." Whether or not we can keep our Republic depends on whether or not we're willing to defend and protect it, whether or not we're worthy of it. And really, it doesn't matter what sort of government a society has. As long as the society is good, a little government is all that is needed and all that will be tolerated, if a society is bad, no amount of government will make it good but there will be no end of power-seekers striving to make the attempt. Hard to look around these days and argue that our little experiment in self-governance is flourishing, but maybe we'll get it back. Step one would be to reject the idea that the United States and the government of the United States are the same thing, that all power resides in Washington DC. We need to stop literally making a federal case out of absolutely everything, get back to the idea that your family, your neighborhood, your community is where your life is. The more important the decision, the more important to have local control, and some decisions are grave enough they're best left to you and your God.

#11 Jerryskids on 2018-06-29 20:45 (Reply)

Roe is a contemptible lie. It should be overturned simply because is a blatant goddam lie. There is no "woman's right to kill" in the United States Constitution. Anyone who says there is is a goddam liar. The Constitution does not consist of what some corrupt lawyer in a black dress farts out of its mouth. The Constitution is what it says it is. It is not what some corrupt lawyer in a black dress would wish it to be.

#12 ccoffer on 2018-06-29 22:15 (Reply)

Chivalrous men could halt baby murder tomorrow. They could wear condoms. Tragedy prevented.

#13 Retriever on 2018-06-30 12:02 (Reply)

I used a condom the night I had sex with a girl when I was 16. The condom broke. Thankfully, no babies were created.

#13.1 Dangerous Dean on 2018-07-01 01:44 (Reply)

Roe vs Wade should stand. While abortion can be morally wrong there are situations where it's the lesser of two evils and only individuals should make that decision.. Even if overturned it will still be done in most states

#14 Gary (Link) on 2018-06-30 16:09 (Reply)

R. v W. was decided using an utter travesty of reason to fit the aberrant whim of the time. Justifying it by variable means makes no more sense than that decision did.

#14.1 Meh on 2018-06-30 16:25 (Reply)

I hate the idea that babies are killed in the name of convenience and female empowerment. To that end, it would be great if we could find out how many abortions happen because the sperm donor, dad or husband forces the pregnant woman to abort when she wants to keep it. The majority of the women I know who have had abortions had theirs because they were forced into it. So that is one issue.

But from a constitutional perspective, this should NEVER have been a federal issue. This was not one of the powers delegated to the national government, and thus states were reserved all the power to set their own abortion laws. I realize that Massachusetts and California will chose death in the name of feminism. But the national government has no right to tell Texas to allow women to have abortions in the first trimester.

#15 Dangerous Dean on 2018-07-01 01:49 (Reply)

I'm against Roe v Wade decision on process grounds. This is a police power of each state and should be legislated in each state based on the will of the state's citizens. I'm with Dangerous Dean on this point.

I have my thoughts on the subject which tend to a compromised position as I can understand both sides of the issue.

However, it is no longer within MY POWER to influence the governments' actions. I've been usurped by a few appointed judges.

#16 Whitehall on 2018-07-01 04:09 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, June 29. 2018

Roe v. Wade