Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
A question for all to Ponder
Published on October 7, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

Moderateman (http://moderateman.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=88642), in a defense of Harriet Miers, just made an interesting statement:

put the lefts precious abortion rights at risk and there is nothing that gets the left foaming at the mouth faster than a perception that someone might overturn Roe V Wade.

Taken at face value, the statement seems to be one of those "well Duh" ones.  And if that were indeed the case, no more would need to be said.

But I have a question for everyone here.  How would overturning Roe versus Wade affect abortion rights?  So many yell that over turning it would make abortions illegal.  Would it?

There is no reputable legal scholar around today that thinks that Roe is a good ruling.  It basically sucks and shows that you don't have to be smart to be on the Supreme Court.  Bakerstreet showed that the so called 'right to privacy' is no such right at all, and that the only thing that Roe did was make abortion a right.  Note, I did not say found the right to abortion.  For Roe found nothing.  Roe created a right.  By 7 unelected people.  In one ruling, they disenfranchised 200+ million people in the United States.

So why not over rule it?  Would not that be better so we could have a better ruling for the future?

And if it is over ruled, what will happen to abortion?

Anyone want to take a stab at answering that?


Comments (Page 5)
7 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7 
on Oct 08, 2005

I knew how it sounded, and it probably was out of line a wee bit.

Extreme examples often make the point better than the most reasoned arguement.

on Oct 08, 2005

"if the government doesn't spell it out as a right, it isn't a right". Which is (of course) a complete 180 of the facts.

Succint and to the point!  Very well stated.

on Oct 08, 2005

If women have special rights, the voting public should have some evidence that they are dictated by something more than Liberal whim.

And provide proof thereof.

on Oct 08, 2005

We the People need to make up our minds, do we want the government to decide what are our rights and what aren't, or do we retain the power over our rights with the government there to protect and defend them?

As Gideon pointed out, we better start telling the government now before it decides to just dictate to us.

on Oct 08, 2005

asked if he was likely to reconsider his position on roe vs wade, president bush responded:

"this is another issue that would have been better decided at the local level by the mayor of new orleans and the governor of louisiana."

Ok, that's one for kingbee!

on Oct 08, 2005

Strange Kingbee, that quote can't be found on a search engine, any suggestions on how I can find it?

I think it is a joke.  Row vs wade out of the city?  Not a bad one either.

on Oct 08, 2005

heyyyyyyyyyy...how come bush is gettin to pack the court with 2 extra justices?

The original decision was 7-2.  hence the 7.  I know it was before your time, but try to read some history.

on Oct 08, 2005

Because, unlike the Court inventing "rights" that never existed, the U.S. Constitution DOES give the President the authority to nominate Justices.

kingbee is trying to imply that the 5-4 decisions of late mean my math was off.  He just forgot about the original decision.

on Oct 08, 2005

yeah but aint it activist executivism or something to add 2 more judges to the 7 "dictators" about whom dr guy and chaos manager are so worked up over cuz they were sitting on the bench when roe v wade was decided?

only 7 voted for it.  that makes 7, not 9. 7+2 = 9.

on Oct 08, 2005

'Sides, I'm a programmer. I can't count past 1, anyways.

A programmer!  One of those!  ooogey....

on Oct 08, 2005
A programmer! One of those! ooogey....


Yep. I'm one of those sick, twisted geeks that makes everyone else's life miserable ...

Speaking of which ... gotta go. Brother's here for his tutoring ... he's required to learn a programming language for his CIS degree and he's working through the course now.

on Oct 08, 2005
Every aspect of the medical relationship with my doctor is regulated. Every procedure I have has been approved, and I am denied those that haven't.Saying that women during a few months of pregnancy are granted broad rights none of the rest of us have makes no sense.


For some reason, as long as it is a woman, and as long as she is pregnant, and as long as she is KILLING the child, she's got special rights. Morbidly true. For experimental procedures to save the life of the child are not allowed under federal laws. They must be tried on animals before being ALLOWED on humans.


Exactly, either the government can make laws regulating medical procedures (meaning medicine should be regulated) or medical procedures are an inherent right which the law must protect. So far it seems too many want this one particular procedure to be an inherent right, but all others need to be regulated and restricted.We the People need to make up our minds, do we want the government to decide what are our rights and what aren't, or do we retain the power over our rights with the government there to protect and defend them?


Not that I really have a lot to add....but I think ya'll said it right. Kudos to all involved at pointing out the irony of "rights"
on Oct 08, 2005

Yep. I'm one of those sick, twisted geeks that makes everyone else's life miserable ...

{Sniff} (In a haughty french sounding voice).  I use to be one, but I transpired to an Engineer!

And if you tell anyone, I will deny it to the hilt!

Do you really want to do that? Y/N {press Y}

Do you Really Really want to do that? Y/N

on Oct 08, 2005

Kudos to all involved at pointing out the irony of "rights"

You are most welcome.  Thank you.

on Oct 08, 2005
Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. It's bad constitutional law.  I'm very pro-choice and I think the states should pass laws regulating abortion.
7 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7