Dr Guy Dr Guy

How would Overturning Roe affect Abortion Rights?

▼

How would Overturning Roe affect Abortion Rights?

A question for all to Ponder

from JoeUser Forums

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?

politics
26,297 views 97 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
" Too many people look to the government as the arbitor of our rights. It's like they are saying, "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."


And others think of the government as some separate power, and not the voting public of the US. If you are going to prevent people from self-rule, you SHOULD have to spell out why. If you allow them to put speed limits on cars, you can't say there is an inherent reason to prevent them from doing so on boats, unless you can back it up.

We are allowed to make laws about what we can do with our own bodies, and we are allowed to make laws governing the doctor patient relationship. If women have special rights, the voting public should have some evidence that they are dictated by something more than Liberal whim.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
We are allowed to make laws about what we can do with our own bodies, and we are allowed to make laws governing the doctor patient relationship. If women have special rights, the voting public should have some evidence that they are dictated by something more than Liberal whim.


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?
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
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."
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
Strange Kingbee, that quote can't be found on a search engine, any suggestions on how I can find it?
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
By 7 unelected people


Why should 7 people, making a decision on


a gang of 7 dictating laws


heyyyyyyyyyy...how come bush is gettin to pack the court with 2 extra justices?
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
any suggestions on how I can find it?


it's a joke, son. a joke.

row? wade?
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah, got it, good pun Kingbee! ;~D

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


Because, unlike the Court inventing "rights" that never existed, the U.S. Constitution DOES give the President the authority to nominate Justices.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
the U.S. Constitution DOES give the President the authority to nominate Justices.


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?

who the hell authorized more than 7 judges dammit?
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
who the hell authorized more than 7 judges dammit?


Eh, it's a Friday. Who said I was supposed to be able count past 7 on a Friday?

'Sides, I'm a programmer. I can't count past 1, anyways.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm a programmer. I can't count past 1, anyways


aaaaaaaaaahahahahahah
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top

"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.

Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top

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!

Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top

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

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

Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.

Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
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"
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top

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

Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top

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

You are most welcome.  Thank you.

Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.