Nope. Apparently it got necro'ed, so that we could rehash all of the same points again. Voice of All(MTG): Go back and read the remainder of the posts. Everything that you said has been said before and addressed.
Good times.
Harkius
In a thread with 53 pages, monkeys typing randomly would have said everything worth saying by now.
Abortion is most certainly a current, active, and complex issue that will always warrant debate. We may as well keep one continuous discussion going rather than have dozens of 10-20 post long splinter threads.
The Declaration of Independance has no legal binding effect.
That is totally untrue and if I may say foolish to say. In researching constitutional law the most popular method is original intent, the Declaration of Indepedence is a goldmine of a resource.
I firmly believe the court is going to have to reverse its Roe and Casey rulings. I join the former Chief Justice Rehnquist in his disent in Roe. Why is the right to abortion less restricted then the freedom of speech? As long as due process is fully takes its course, there is no violation and the court was wrong to be judicial activitists in such a rediculious manner as was presented in Roe. I love O'Conner as a person, she would have been an excellent President, but that trimester talk was simply outlandish.
Police Powers are states rights, which in my opinion abortion cases truely belong. The largest example of the negative effects (or foolishness) of judical activism in the Roe ruling was the trimester phase which was meant to be a compramise to the anti-abortionists originally. To summerize in two sentences the court judged that the state had the right to regulate 3rd trimester abortions sense the child was 'viable' and therefore a 'person' with political rights. In Roe and later reaffirmed in Casey, the court has essentially made invalid any abortion law. I do not believe the court was intended to have that kind of power, while I certainly agree with Marbury v. Madision, abortion at least has an implication of moral issues which belongs to the state.
I am not going to eleberate my arguements, if you want to know more I suggest you read the cases yourself and make up your own opinion.
I like how nobody has addressed the actual question of the inherent backwardness of leaving abortion rights decisions to the states. By doing so, you discriminate against the poor, who are more likely to require an abortion because they're not financially ready to raise a child, and are less likely to be able to travel to another state, or more likely, a different region of the country, to have an abortion done. If it must be law that abortions are illegal, make it so universally, or likewise retain universal rights to an abortion. That is why we need a national policy, not a state one, to remove the socioeconomic status incentives from the decision making. the decision must be based on morality and ethics, not on punishing the nation's poor.
Harkius,
Thank you for getting down to the most central question that separates Pro-life and Pro-choice supporters, which is: Is a fetus a person?
If it is, then it would be a crime to kill an innocent person.
If not, then it's part of a woman's body, and therefore subject to her discretion.
Oh, thank you.
Whew, here I was thinking that it did.
This is such a load off, you know, knowing that it has no legal binding.
Because of that, that means you never have to discuss it at all ever.
Thank you, sir.
In a thread with 53 pages, monkeys typing randomly would have said everything worth saying by now.
That is totally untrue and if I may say foolish to say. In researching constitutional law the most popular method is original intent, the Declaration of Indepedence is a goldmine of a resource.
I firmly believe the court is going to have to reverse its Roe and Casey rulings. I join the former Chief Justice Rehnquist in his disent in Roe. Why is the right to abortion less restricted then the freedom of speech? As long as due process is fully takes its course, there is no violation and the court was wrong to be judicial activitists in such a rediculious manner as was presented in Roe. I love O'Conner as a person, she would have been an excellent President, but that trimester talk was simply outlandish.
Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito; only one more!
I am not going to eleberate my arguements, if you want to know more I suggest you read the cases yourself and make up your own opinion.
www.findlaw.com
52% of abortions in the US are done on women with family incomes over $30,000. 72% above $15,000.
800th post on the topic!
All people, poor included, who required an abortion, got an abortion performed.
Thank you for getting down to the most central question that separates Pro-life and Pro-choice supporters, which is: Is a fetus a person?
If it is, then it would be a crime to kill an innocent person.
If not, then it's part of a woman's body, and therefore subject to her discretion.
Necro warning.