Reflections of Roe vs. Wade

homeagain wrote: This Sunday marks the 39th anniversary of R. V W........looking forward into the future........will it be dis-mantled totally or do you
think it will remain(say for the next 2 decades?).........since I'm a "boomer", I was curious what the younger generation believes.

I believe the ORIGINAL intent of the post had gotten somewhat lost in the fray.........IF an R becomes POTUS will the the law be
dis-mantled (or SEVERELY amended)?

Hopefully, not.... They'll just keep nibbling around the edges, state by state...

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

homeagain wrote: Question to Arlen.......are you "trolling"? If you are NOT.....please elaborate on your perception of those women who you consider
Scum (within the context of this discussion)....your AGE is also a consideration within this discussion and if you could relate those
two factors it would assist in understanding your above post.

I'm going to step into this with some opinion, although I doubt you will appreciate it. Up front, I will tell you I am not opposed to abortion. It's legal and it's the woman's legal right to decide whether she wants to have an abortion. I would support your right to an abortion to the max. But... I do consider it killing of a future human life. Period. You can have all the doctors and professionals explain how it's a fetus, and not human and not this or that, but I ask you... if you let it live... will it ever become anything else but a human baby? Will it become a rabbit? No. It will become a human. If you can't admit that, then you are lying to yourself and everyone else. But it is legal and I totally support your right to end it's life.

It is not the killing of a future human life GOP - it is the killing of an existing human life as there exists no argument, scientific or otherwise, that the life that is in the womb is living or that it is human. Depending on one's opinion, it may only be a person in the future, but there exists no doubt, scientific or otherwise, that it is a human life that is past its point of creation that is living within the womb.

As for someone having the right to take another human life, to commit a homicide, it is generally agreed upon principle that it may only be done without exposure to punishment if it is done to protect one's own right to life, or to protect the life of another of the members of the society. Not their lifestyles, their actual physical life. The current state of the abortion laws in this union violate this foundational principle IMNTBHO. I can, using logic and reason, see where an abortion is a protection of one's own right to life when the mother's own life is imminently threatened by the human life that is in her womb; or as an extension of her natural right to self defense if she is the victim of a rape or incest. However, after a human life has been created through her own willful and voluntary actions, and her own life is not in imminent danger, I fail to see how terminating that human life in the womb is anything other than a violation of the natural law that is endowed upon us by our very creation. Our foundational principle, after all, is that all life is created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, not that all life is born equal and similarly endowed.

I fully support the ability of men and women to choose a means of contraception that prevents human life from being created by their actions. If one wishes to voluntarily make themselves incapable of creating life, that is a decision which affects their life and only their life over which neither society nor any individual within it should interfere. It is also well known that not every human life that is created survives to emerge from the womb - and this is also a function of natural law. Sometimes the womb is not hospitable to sustaining the proper conditions for life to continue, sometimes the human life itself is incapable of being sustained even in a hospitable environment. It is my opinion that the artificial simulation of these natural conditions prior to engaging in willful and voluntary behavior which might create human life should be permitted but that any similar attempts after the fact should not.

As a point of fact, all that overturning Roe would do is to place back into the hands of the member States the ability to determine for themselves, according to the will of their citizens, whether or not the practice should be allowed by their state. This, to me, is an individual welfare of the citizen issue and as such the power to decide it rests with each state. I, as a citizen of Colorado, have no more interest, or power, in how California decides this issue than I do how Germany decides it. Both of these governments are foreign to the one that I am a citizen of. The federal government has no more power or right to decide this issue for the citizens of Colorado than it does the citizens of Germany. The sovereignty that this State claims for itself with regards to the right to decide the issue of marijuana also applies regarding the right to independently decide the issue of abortion.

President Obama weighs in on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I'll post his response for him on this thread...

CNSNews.com) – “And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-d ... eir-dreams

That's our president.

homeagain wrote: I believe the ORIGINAL intent of the post had gotten somewhat lost in the fray.........IF an R becomes POTUS will the the law be dis-mantled (or SEVERELY amended)?

Regardless of which party the POTUS is elected from SCOTUS is unlikely to overturn its earlier ruling, regardless of how poor the foundation of logic upon which it was decided, given the current makeup of the court. You could expect that Kennedy would join the Ginsburg 4 in protecting the flawed decision. And I am of the opinion that even if Kennedy didn't vote with the Ginsburg 4, Alito would since he generally takes a one bite approach to the actions of earlier courts.

Now, if you are asking should the SCOTUS ruling be overturned, the answer to that one is yes, it should and it is really only a matter of time before that occurs. The States that belong to the union retained the sovereignty to answer this question for themselves and it is only a matter of time before they take it back from the entity which seized it from them. It might be done through the same process that the States are taking back their sovereignty with regards to marijuana law, or the original flawed decision might eventually be overturned, but eventually I have to believe that the power to decide the matter will be rightfully returned to the States where it belongs.

Unfortunately, it will happen one of these days. For folks who want less regulation, they can't leave this one alone.

Arlen wrote: I rationally explained the situation:
Liberals are for abortion (murder) of babies (victims) by their mothers (perpetrators).
Liberals are for the abolition of the death penalty (justice) of murders (perpetrators) despite the death (murder) of their victim.

Conservatives are against abortion (murder) of babies (victims) by their mothers (perpetrators).
Conservatives are against the abolition of the death penalty (justice) of murders (perpetrators) despite the death (murder) of their victim.

Please point out my error in this.

Arlen: I believe I can speak to this, as my little sister was murdered when she was 8 and I was 11. In my life I have only met one other person that belongs to this exclusive club...and believe me, it is not a club I want to belong to.

I do not consider myself liberal or conservative, and by generalizing that all liberals want the death penalty done away with and all conservatives want to keep the death penalty...you have categorized me without even knowing anything about me. Almost the same as me saying that all men are obtuse and do not pay attention.

Frankly, I feel anger when you talk about this very emotional and painful subject, unless you have experienced it personally. If you have experienced the murder of a close friend or family member and the aftermath that occurs with it for years and years and years, then, by all means, please continue to voice your opinion.

FYI: I believe in the death penalty in certain circumstances. I believe each and every circumstance should be reviewed individually with several factors, some of which are: 1) How many times has this perpetrator committed crimes? 2) What kind of crimes has the perpetrator committed? 3) What is the background, specifically what kind of childhood did this person have? 4) What was the motive of the crime? 5) What is putting this person to death going to accomplish, besides killing the perpetrator? 6) What are the wishes of the victim's family (though this information could be vile and angry, it does have an impact)?

And, yes, I realize what was said above is my opinion...but, as I said earlier, I believe I have more of a right to speak to this than most other people.

ComputerBreath wrote: Arlen: I believe I can speak to this, as my little sister was murdered when she was 8 and I was 11. In my life I have only met one other person that belongs to this exclusive club...and believe me, it is not a club I want to belong to.

I do not consider myself liberal or conservative, and by generalizing that all liberals want the death penalty done away with and all conservatives want to keep the death penalty...you have categorized me without even knowing anything about me. Almost the same as me saying that all men are obtuse and do not pay attention.

Frankly, I feel anger when you talk about this very emotional and painful subject, unless you have experienced it personally. If you have experienced the murder of a close friend or family member and the aftermath that occurs with it for years and years and years, then, by all means, please continue to voice your opinion.

FYI: I believe in the death penalty in certain circumstances. I believe each and every circumstance should be reviewed individually with several factors, some of which are: 1) How many times has this perpetrator committed crimes? 2) What kind of crimes has the perpetrator committed? 3) What is the background, specifically what kind of childhood did this person have? 4) What was the motive of the crime? 5) What is putting this person to death going to accomplish, besides killing the perpetrator? 6) What are the wishes of the victim's family (though this information could be vile and angry, it does have an impact)?

And, yes, I realize what was said above is my opinion...but, as I said earlier, I believe I have more of a right to speak to this than most other people.

CB - first, I'd like to pass along my condolences on your loss. I'm sure putting a post like this out there for others to see was painful for you. I admire you for doing so. I've been very hesitant to share my story in a forum as it, too, is extremely painful. In that light, I will not go into specific details, but I will say I fit into the category of having lost someone due to violent crime. It pains me terribly, like you, to see and hear people who've not experienced anything like this to speak so glibly, and with such conviction about something they have no real knowledge of. Arlen, if you have experienced something like this, my sincere apologies and condolences. As far as the death penalty goes, I agree with you CB - there are circumstances where my initial reaction was to kill the SOB(s) who did this. My problem with that, however, is that nobody - not you, not I, not a judge, not a jury - is infallible. No matter how carefully the steps leading up to, and carrying out, an execution have been thought out, developed, and implemented, there is still a margin for error regardless of how small that may be. That is why I support a life sentence without the possibility of parole in lieu of the death penalty. Believe me, I have no sympathy whatsoever for perpetrators of any crime, much less violent crimes. But if there is even a remote chance the wrong person is being put to death for a crime they did not commit, I believe they should have the opportunity to prove it. If they cannot, then the life sentence without parole is a fitting punishment. Like you, I also realize this is just my opinion. And, like you, I also believe I have more of a right to talk about this very sensitive and controversial issue than most other people. Again, my condolences on your loss, and my great admiration for putting yourself out there like you did.

And, per the request of the OP, regarding the original question - I do not believe it'll make any difference whatsoever to Roe vs. Wade if a Repub president is elected. We still have a system of checks and balances in our government. If one, or both, of the other branches of government does do anything that tries to overturn or modify Roe vs. Wade, the SCOTUS will likely hear an inevitable appeal from someone on the constitutionality of the legislation/amendment/whatever. If SCOTUS were to agree, and overturn or modify, Roe vs. Wade it would be an unheard of precedent, in my opinion.

Decisions issued on a foundation of clearly flawed logic are reversed with frequency by SCOTUS zhawke. Whether or not the foundation upon which Roe was decided is flawed is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. You might find the foundation quite sound and thus classify a reversal as "an unheard of precedent", but there are many, myself among them, who remain astounded that the flimsy foundation laid in Roe hasn't already collapsed.