Posted on 11/05/2005 5:40:37 AM PST by AliVeritas
The word abortion appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. Yet less than a week into Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, abortion is already emerging as the flashpoint of the confirmation debate. It is an apt moment to consider how we got to where this single issue so dominates judicial politics.
The answer is Roe v. Wade, the Court's 7-2 decision that, in one fell judicial swoop, took this deeply divisive social issue out of the hands of voters and their elected legislators. The year was 1973. The consequences have distorted American law and politics ever since.
Go back to late 1960s and early 1970s, before Roe became the most controversial Court decision since Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. Numerous state legislatures had relaxed their hitherto absolute bans on abortion, making it easier for a woman whose health was endangered to obtain one. The burgeoning women's movement had made legalization one of its primary goals.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
I'll take a quick stab at this. More people, more houses. Does that about describe it?
3,600 Americans die in abortions everyday. In 2000 more than 35,000 abortions were performed in Penna, about the student population of Penn State University's main campus. In 1997, 1.3 million abortions were performed, close to the population of Phila.
In the UNITED STATES in 1997, 1.3 million abortions were performed, close to the population of Phila.
Lesseee...
A government of the people, by the people and for the people?
Where the laws are written by congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the courts?
Where laws that do not exist, because they were not conceived when the constitution were written, and are therefore not subject to the constitution, are addressed through an amendment to the constitution rather than 9 black-robed dictators deciding what the constitution SHOULD have said?
Abortion Law should be decided by the states, or by the people respectively.
Go back to late 1960s and early 1970s, before Roe became the most controversial Court decision since Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. Numerous state legislatures had relaxed their hitherto absolute bans on abortion, making it easier for a woman whose health was endangered to obtain one.
bump
close to the population of Phila.
And most of them would be just as liberal?
This is a tough subject for me to listen to on any talk radio program and I usually shut it off as soon as it comes on. the left will argue that we do not know when a life begins in the womb. I have found a pretty good answer to that. Since we do know when life ends, anyone?
Life ends when the human heart stops beating, therefore we can fight for a human life once we hear a heartbeat.
On the other hand, since the democrap party are the ones in favor of it I say we abort them.
And/or by legislation in Congress. One of the biggest reasons abortion isn't nearly as controversial in other democracies is that abortion laws were enacted through legislation. Here in the US abortion has become a "constitutional right" shoved down our throats by an activist Supreme Court.
At this time, even IF Roe was defeated, the states would step right up and create their own mini Roes to appease the noisy left in their own territory. This wouldn't necessarily be a success in the end.
The 'rats have a big reason to fear the end of Roe/Wade. They would lose a lot of the young female vote if this issue disappeared.
The big difference is that the issue would have been decided democratically rather than by judicial fiat.
I see you were happy with the recently signed Campaign Finance Reform.
The GOP would have a heck of a lot more trouble winning elections because the Democrats have aborted themselves out of power.
I have become involved in a few abortion arguments and have found the ultimate stop button.
After I put down what I am drinking (it has ranged from coffee to adult beverages) I ask one simple question:
Has the person arguing about abortion (pro or con) ever had one? If they are male, I ask if any male lawyer or judge ever had an abortion.
Once I get the normal “No”. I then ask how can they talk rationally about something they have no knowledge of? If they are members of the Bar I ask them are they willing to let people who have never been to law school become lawyers and judges since personal knowledge of the subject doesn’t appear to be a prerequisites for heated and sometime irrational discussions.
One time a woman admitted to having an abortion. At that point I said: “Madam, you are, for good or bad, the only person who understands this issue. Would you be so kind as to give me your position and, if possible, explain why?” She responded with her position but said the reason was entirely too personal. To which I thanked her for her bravery and told the rest of the people to STFU since we had only one “expert” among us.
The conversation went quickly elsewhere, which was the objective of the exercise to begin with.
IMHO this should be how all arguments about abortion should be handled - those with personal knowledge of the reasons behind and the physical and emotional impacts should help the rest of us understand this deeply personal issue. All the other talking heads are nothing more than hot air generators and should be viewed as such.
Every male should have a vasectomy before they reach the age of sexual maturity. If we have the medical ability it should be done right after they are born. Then, later on in life, if the man wishes to have children they operation could be reversed. In the meanwhile, he could have all the meaningless sex he wanted and you’d never have to worry about an unwanted pregnancy. No child would ever die in an abortion again.
See? Problem solved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.