How would Overturning Roe affect Abortion Rights?

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 6)

ParaTed2k

on Oct 08, 2005

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

Yup Dr. Guy, Kingbee already pointed that out, and you're right, it was a good pun!

stubbyfinger

on Oct 08, 2005

Let me ask this question. If it were proven to you that banning abortion would actually increase the number of abortions in this country would you still want to ban it?

Dr Guy

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.

I am pro life, but for other reasons, I totally agree with you.

Dr Guy

on Oct 08, 2005

Yup Dr. Guy, Kingbee already pointed that out, and you're right, it was a good pun!

Always the bridesmaid, never the bride!

WAIT! Dont repeat that! Substitute Groom and Best man! I dont want to sit on your side of the movie theater!

Dr Guy

on Oct 08, 2005

Let me ask this question. If it were proven to you that banning abortion would actually increase the number of abortions in this country would you still want to ban it?

That is not the issue here, and it has been discussed ad infinitum. It is not really Germaine.

But as you did ask a good question, let me ask you one. If it was proven that making murder legal would actually decrease the number of murders, would you still want to make it legal?

stubbyfinger

on Oct 08, 2005

History has already proven without a doubt that making murder illegal significantly reduces murder rates.

But to answer your question yes I would want the law against murder removed from the books if it saved lives.

The word “legal” only exist to describe the opposite of illegal. You can’t make something legal unless you made it illegal at some point. So to say you want make something legal means you want to revert things back to the default state it doesn’t mean approval. But many think if you don’t make a law against it, you approve of it.

We should make laws against harmful behavior to stop people from doing harm, not to make a statement that the majority of this society doesn’t approve of that behavior. If it is shown that the law does more harm than good get rid of it. Making a law that causes more harm just so we can feel better about ourselves is wrong.

Dr Guy

on Oct 08, 2005

But to answer your question yes I would want the law against murder removed from the books if it saved lives.

Nice case of situational ethics. Guess it is easy to live with oneself when your ethics change with the wind. And very sad as well, as I think many are like you.

Chaos Manager

on Oct 08, 2005

Let me ask this question. If it were proven to you that banning abortion would actually increase the number of abortions in this country would you still want to ban it?

See, here's the thing about abortion. I personally, am pro-life/anti-abortion in my personal beliefs. However, politically, I am pro-choice. Here's why - while I, personally am against it (for various reasons), I do not deny that anything that you do with your body is your choice. You have the right to choose which is right for you. That doesn't give you the right to shove your choice down my throat. It just means that I'll let you choose the self-destructive path, if that's what you want.

Dr Guy

on Oct 08, 2005

And that is fine. However, if you beleive it is murder, as I do, then it is not forcing my beleifs on you, but rather holding to the fact that murder is wrong, regardless of the circumstances.

If you do not believe murder is wrong, as Stubby indicated, then I cannot really relate to you. And yes, it is situational ethics.

stubbyfinger

on Oct 08, 2005

Like I was saying it’s not about your ethics or my ethics, it’s about saving the lives of unborn children.

If you do not believe murder is wrong, as Stubby indicated, then I cannot really relate to you. And yes, it is situational ethics.

No you asked me a hypothetical question and I gave you the answer that resulted in fewer murders. Sounds like you’re the one that’s pro-murder.

I would have the courage to pay the price for my “situation ethics” if it saved lives. So the answer to my question is you would tolerate more abortions to protect your unwavering ethics.

Dr Guy

on Oct 08, 2005

Like I was saying it’s not about your ethics or my ethics, it’s about saving the lives of unborn children.

You would sell your soul to save your soul? Now who is being illogical. Unless you are an atheist, in which case, it is jsut situational ethics. What ever feels good, do it.

stubbyfinger

on Oct 08, 2005

Yes I would spend eternity in Hell to save the lives of these unborn children. And you can continue to proudly tell everyone you’re pro-life.

Perhaps if you write down the words “I would sacrifice unborn children to keep my ethics intact” you might see how selfish it is. But whatever makes you feel good about yourself right.

Dr Guy

on Oct 08, 2005

Perhaps if you write down the words “I would sacrifice unborn children to keep my ethics intact” you might see how selfish it is. But whatever makes you feel good about yourself right.

No, you would do nothing of the kind. For in selling yourself, you have already lost. Your ethics are exactly what the Nazis had. And you scare me. Saving a child is important, but not at the expense of everything you know is right. That is how the Nazis did it.

You truly scare me. I amy not save every child, but I will not sacrafice an innocent for a perceived good. Sorry, I will not sell my soul to the lunatics or the evil ones. ONce you do that, just goose step and sieg heil.

joeKnowledge

on Oct 09, 2005

In one ruling, they disenfranchised 200+ million people in the United States.

ummm no. I have yet to see where most people in the US don't want abortion.

Please show me the place where you found this statistic.

Over ruling it would open the flood gates, but I still think there will be abortions. Most people agree that in cases of health (for the mother or baby), rape, incest and age (under 14) would be a allowable 'evil'.

As I said in many threads about abortion, the very same people who wish it gone are THE VERY same people who do NOT AT ALL want to pay out their pockets to have better schools, better food programs, family planning, welfare, pay for phycoligical help for those of rape and incest who have to carry the child, better odobtion system (and the list goes on)

I am pro choice, but every time.... and I mean EVERY TIME... I put this to someone who is pro-life that they do not know how to answer (except that one time when someone said they are willing to pay for many of the things mentioned above).

I am sure there are people who would pay or at least not groan about it, but I bet you money I don't have that if mot Americas were asked this, there might not be so many pro-life supporters.

Sooo... I wait... abortion banned through-out the land? How many people are willing to put their money where their mouth is?
(for those who want to say 'I can't believe your making this a money issue when its about lives should smell the coffee... this is a capitalistic society and everything has a cost ON THE SOCIETY and on you. Raising a child is not free. being unemployed, homeless, in jail, delinquent, and so on cost money... deal with it)

joeKnowledge

on Oct 09, 2005

[quote}It would be a NON-ISSUE altogether if women stopped screwing around in the first place{/quote]

DAMN THOSE WOMEN!!!
(I am glad I'm a guy cause I can pound whoever and not have to worry about abortion.. well unless I want to have a kid and she keep aborting it)

Overturning Roe V. Wade will return the determination of WHO decides back to the individual states

I agree that is true

Overturning RvW would be the first step on a path of eroding reproductive rights.

Not all all, it would just start forcing more women to exercise the reproductive rights they already have, like keeping your legs shut or using reliable protection.

Look at what I quoted previously... it will go to the states... so basically if I could do it in my own state now, there is a LARGE POSSIBILTY that I won't be able to anymore. Keep in mind the statement... the word 'path' is in there. Path meaning it starts with some restrictions... then more, then more.

I think what most people do not understand is that we are human... not too different from animals... we need to deal with that fact and the fact that 'just say no' (

remember that phrase? If we were computers maybe that would have worked) or just keep those legs shut (totally ignoring that a male could be involved in this... LMAO).

Lets deal with some facts here:
FACT - people have sex
FACT - PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT FOR QUITE SOME TIME
FACT - statistically speaking as well as historically, people will continue to have sex
FACT - No matter how smart we think we are, we have basic instincts just like other creatures of nature
FACT - The same people (for the most part) who could give a rats ass about this are the same people who do not want to pay for the cost to society of these children being raised and housed and loved
FACT - The government will never EVER improve on the adoption system
FACT - Once the child is 'lost' he or she end up in jail, grows up a criminal and then in some small cases, executed.
FACT - look at the first fact again... and then just say no.
FACT - Look at the third fact... so expect the rate of children in the US to grow... not exactly a bad thing if we know they are coming and willing to keep programs like welfare, food stamps and other programs around and increase the budget

Pull it our of my arse? Nope. These statistic are readily available. Social science also has show how humans tend to behave. I'm not a historian, but I think there is a trend on the having sex issue as well as where most of these unaborted children life conditions will be and, going back to statistics and social science, how far this individual will go typically.

I don't like abortion at all, but I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate and saying we will support and finance social services when we end abortion.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!