Ban on Type of Abortion Is Declared Unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jun 1, 2004.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    this is one to watch, could be one step closer to the supreme court reversing roe v. wade.

    i know it's fruitless to even suggest it, but wouldn't it be refreshing if this thread remained on the legal maneuverings, and not another tired religious argument about abortion in general?
     
  2. bella macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #2
    Wow - how interesting! It will be facinating to see how each side makes their case and provides proof.
     
  3. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
  4. bella macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #4
    How strange that the bans don't consider womens health. I have a pretty open mind about the subject. I know of a few women who have had abortions. I'm neither partial or impartial to it.
     
  5. Steradian macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Jose
    #5
  6. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #6
    Depends who you ask. Moderates and liberals are generally relatively supportive of most ACLU actions. Many conservatives, however, see an organization that supports criminals selectively, which they consider to be immoral.

    Many conservatives I know who don't like the ACLU maintain that position because the ACLU does not defend the rights offered by the 2nd ammendment (you know, the gun ammendment). The ACLU's stance is a slap to the face of those who believe strongly that the 2nd ammendment gives citizens unlimited access to firearms. The ACLU's interpretation of the ammendment goes against the interpretations by groups like the NRA.

    What I don't understand is why some pro-gun people dismiss all of the ACLU's work on that basis alone. The ACLU does a lot of good work in upholding the bill of rights. It seems silly to dismiss that work because you have a grudge against them for not being pro-gun.

    But then, many people also believe that criminals have no rights. ESPECIALLY accused sexual criminals. Thus, they are quite upset that the ACLU would stand up for the rights of those criminals.

    Taft
     
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    Surely you mean, judges who would be judges. Surely you're not so confused about Constitutional issues that you think legislators can rescind Constitutional guarantees whenever the mood strikes them. Surely not.
     
  8. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #8
    Show me at what point in the constitution that abortions are gaurenteed? It should have been a legislative issue not a judicial one is the point.
     
  9. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    Nice spin effort, but I'm not going to bite.

    Many things should be legislative issues instead of judicial acts, but that's entirely beside the point.
     
  10. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #10
    Thanks. That is precisely why I said that!
     
  11. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #11
    ooh, this thread isa S-P-Y-C-E-E-E meatball.

    imo, if this country taught responsible and healthy attitudes towards sex and the body, had relevant and pragmatic sex education for our children, and advocated the responsible use of contraceptives and allowed birth-control measures such as the "morning-after pill" and other related products, then perhaps we woudn't find ourselves in this mess, left with primarily abortions given to women whose lives are threatened by not having one. Although I personally find abortions distasteful, I find it amusing to see people advocating the "life" of a fetus over the life of a full-grown woman. I find it roughly analguous to the related pro-life, pro-death penalty camp...and just as hypocritical.
     
  12. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #12
    As far as I know, all but the most extreme Pro-Life people accept that sometimes the baby will have to die beccause it presents a danger to the mother. However why should we accept the murder of innocent children merely so people can behave like uncontrolled animals and have sex whenever they want without the consequences?
     
  13. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #13
    No its not, Stelliform complained that the judges had exceed their authority by turning abortion into a judicial matter. Since the judges duty in these kind of cases is to determine the constitutionality of the law it makes sense to ask where in the constitution abortion is a protected right. You made the claim that it was a Constiutional gaurentee. I just want to know what part or parts of the Constitution back up that assumption. I can't seem to find any that would do so, which is why I belive that it isn't and should never have been a constitutional matter.
     
  14. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #14
    But we ARE animals...and although we try to better ourselves in all things, we always to some degree fail...so why can we not address these elements of our human nature and do something pragmatic (like my above post) to responsibly address the issue, lessening the use of the moral-polarizing abortion. From what I understand, it is not a pleasant experience for anyone, and it would be nice if responsible choices were laid out before it comes to that...also, I did not mean to imply that all pro-lifers are as I described, I apologize for any misconception...
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    You seem to not understand how these cases come before the courts. Judges don't bring them, people do, as they are entitled to under our system of justice. In Roe the Supreme Court was faced with a petition which questioned the government's jurisdiction over the insides of women's bodies. The court did not invent this conflict, in fact the legislatures did, by failing to address this fundamental problem. The court became the vehicle for resolving it. Whether you or I like dislike their solution (it certainly has flaws) is what is beside the point. The Court, which had been struggling for decades to decide how much of our personal lives the government could invade decided that abortion fell into that category, and it could be regulated but not prohibited.

    Incidentally, I did not refer to abortion as Constitutionally guaranteed. My point was intended to be a broader one about the power of legislatures.
     
  16. wwidgirl macrumors member

    wwidgirl

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    #16
    Some Problems with the ban on "partial birth abortions" from http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba7.htm:

    "the Act fails to include any exception to the prohibition on abortion procedures 'where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of the...health of the mother.'...Thus, the Act prohibits physicians from exercising their professional medical discretion to determine the most appropriate procedure for their patients, and bars physicians from providing, and their patients from obtaining, the safest abortion possible."

    "the Act defines the term 'partial-birth abortion' so broadly as to ban the safest and most common methods of abortion starting at least at the beginning of the second-trimester of pregnancy, including the Dilation and Evacuation ('D&E') method of abortion... "

    "The Act also contains an inadequate exception to save the life of the woman....thus [it] 'imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability' to choose abortion. "

    "Alternatively, the Act is so vague that it fails to give physicians fair warning of which abortion procedures are prohibited. "

    "Thus, the Act violates the rights of Plaintiffs and their patients to privacy, bodily integrity and autonomy, liberty, life, due process, and equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution."
     
  17. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #17
    When birth-control was first being introduced and groups were trying to legalize it in the US pro-ponents argued that it would be used in a limited fashion by responsible people.

    Anyway, while the goal of less or no abortions is a noble one, you are asking people on the pro-life side to accept something thats just as wrong for many of them. Also many feel that teaching some of these views is just giving in and encouraging kids to have sex. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but its still a hard sell.
     
  18. bella macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #18
    They are actually talking about making the morning after pill available over the counter here instead of having to get a prescription from your doctor. I think it's a great idea!

    As for the whole ACLU thing about not being pro-gun.... That would be reason enough for me to dismiss them.
     
  19. bella macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #19

    It's been proven that kids who are well educated about sex, actually wait longer to experience it and are smarter about it (use protection etc) than kids who aren't taught much about it.
     
  20. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #20
    OK, go read the majority and minority opinions in Roe vs. Wade. THEN come back and tell me their decision wasn't founded in the constitution and why. THEN go read this latest decision, in the context of Roe vs. Wade's precedence, and tell me that it is out of line with the ruling in Roe vs. Wade AND the constitution.

    I always hear this dumb line from people. "Activist judges! The sky is falling!" A judge's job is to interpret the laws on the books. If the laws on the books are vague or there is room for interpretation, I can assure you that different people will interpret that law differently, and hence judges will do the same. If the lawmakers didn't wish for more than one interpretation, they should have done a better job of writing the law.

    Also, our constitution/bill of rights doesn't always specifically enumerate rights. "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" and "general welfare" come to mind as "catch all" clauses intended to leave some wiggle room in their interpretation and implementation by congress.

    My point? Just because it doesn't say "A woman has a right to an abortion" in the constitution, doesn't mean the constitution doesn't grant that right, through a more far reaching clause or construct.

    Taft
     
  21. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #21
    Even if everything you allege is true (something I don't really accept) assume people use birth control in what you describe as a "unlimited" and "irresponsible" fashion, and assume that it encourages kids to have sex, then what right is it of government to adopt your moral view of the world and stop the rest of us heathens from engaging in our own private sexual behavior based on a different moral code? Since when should your view of what is right and proper be forced on me or my children?

    Now I don't think it is a particularly good idea for young people to engage in sexual behavior too early, but if they do I want them to know about the risks and how to protect themselves. That view seems quite reasonable to me, and if you want to talk about a "hard sell" then in the days of AIDS and many other STDs the idea of limiting other people's rights to protect themselves, based on a narrow religious view of what behavior should be, is the hardest sell of all.
     
  22. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #22
    As long as you don't include in your listing of birth control methods "murder" then the answer to your question is never.
     
  23. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #23
    To add to your post:

    The Ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Meaning that rights are not limited to those specifically mentioned.

    Also:

    In 1973 the Court held in Roe v. Wade that the states cannot bar a woman from having an abortion because of the constitutional right to privacy. Because it went against the deep convictions of many people, Roe ignited a firestorm of political controversy that has continued ever since. Although the court has heard many abortion cases in the years since Roe and has changed the rules somewhat, it has declined to back away from the central point: A woman has a constitutional right to control her body.

    http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569008_2/Constitution_of_the_United_States.html

    Technically, if the Supreme Court were to reverse their 1973 ruling, they would have to rule that a woman does not retain control over her own body. But, as we all know, the Supremes would probably avoid this line of argument and reverse on other grounds. More likely, they would simply chip away at Roe to the point of making it irrelevant.
     
  24. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #24

    Thanks for making the point clearer. I didn't want to say it myself, as the opinions in the supreme court decision are probably far more eloquent than any ramblings I could muster. They would probably be far more constitutionally correct, as well. I guess that's why they're on the supreme court and I'm not. Heh. ;)

    Taft
     
  25. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #25
    I'm glad you brought these up. Notice that life precedes liberty.
     

Share This Page