What if Roe Vs. Wade was Overturned?

[Hagbard Celine]

No, babies aren't bad. You're missing my point. My point is that in a free society, laws can't be made dictating how and what a woman does with her own body. She should be able to have a choice.

Tying tubes is a horrible idea. What if you want to have kids later on down the road?

 

[archangel]

No, babies aren't bad. You're missing my point. My point is that in a free society, laws can't be made dictating how and what a woman does with her own body. She should be able to have a choice.

not when it includes killing for superficial reasons...such as financial,not looking good when going to the Bahamas,OMG the dreaded stretch marks,oh gee I was young and having fun I'll correct my mistake by throwing out the trash,on and on!

 

[Zhukov]

The overturning of Roe v. Wade would result in a higher rate of illegally performed abortions

Why? Overturning Roe wouldn't make abortion illegal.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

"States rights" is a pretty badly misunderstood concept, and not really one I got until I went to law school. Semi-conservative professor on or about the first day says, off-the-cuff, "and you know, states are sovereign, you guys get that, right?"

Me, proud Republican, graduate of fine state university, widely read in politics and history:

"Duh, no."

I didn't.

I had NO CLUE what the actual division of power between states and the federal government was. Not surprising: nobody really teaches it, because it would just make you mad to understand it. Under our Constitutional system, the "base" governments ARE the state governments. The federal government is supposed to limited to powers "enumerated," i.e., listed, in the Constitution. In other words, states are "sovereign" like a KING is sovereign, meaning, it's got the power to do WHATEVER it wants WHENEVER it wants, period. It's the all-powerful. The founding fathers literally saw Massachussetts and South Carolina as versions of England and France --- like countries. And the federal government was like a European Union.

A formula for understanding:

1. States can do whatever they want, except what the Constitution says they can't.

2. The Federal Government can't do anything, except what the Constitution says it can.

Can you believe that?

So how does the federal government end up running our whole lives?

Legal trickery is the answer, starting in FDR's time and continuing until today.

Excellent post. The founding fathers identified themselves not as Americans, but by the State they hailed from, Washington considered himself a Virginian for example (hope I got the right state with him )

Powers given to the Federal govt were suppose to be ONLY those necessary in order to make the union function, thats why the "default" authority went to the States.

Another little known fact. States DID have state sponsored religion, the first amendment was simply so the feds couldnt tell the states which form of Christianity they would have as their State sponsored religion.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No, babies aren't bad. You're missing my point. My point is that in a free society, laws can't be made dictating how and what a woman does with her own body. She should be able to have a choice.

Tying tubes is a horrible idea. What if you want to have kids later on down the road?

The baby is not a part of the woman, its a seperate individual human being as proven at conception by a different DNA and often a different gender. Now, you do realize we use DNA to legally individualize persons?? We also use it biologically and scientifically.....

Oddly enough, those who would say the fetus is a part of the womans body would have to be claiming at some point she has two heads, two brains, two hearts, four legs, a penis and a vagina.....

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The overturning of Roe v. Wade would result in a higher rate of illegally performed abortions done by both doctors and laymen, which would lead to a higher rate of female medical problems and death. Forcing women to have babies they don't want would also result in a higher rate of single mother homes (the great threat to the republican nuclear family) and kids sent out for adoption and put in foster homes.

And you know this is true....how?

Maybe you should consider that maybe if abortion were not legal, less women would have unwanted pregnancies, oh my,,,,guess what, that may also lead to less STD's, aids, herpes, oh and guess what, maybe it would lower the divorce rate a bit if women considered their bodies a bit more sacred as in past years,,,,,

and guess what, maybe, just maybe, there would be less single mother households, yes, SINGLE MOTHER HOUSEHOLDS, the single greatest contributing factor to creating an ever growing underclass, the greatest threat to our nation, bar none.

Its a little more complex than "just claiming its her body" isnt it??

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No, but you seemed to need some insulting. Well... actually rude is important to me, as well. What is "condensating" as it might apply to human social interaction? Did you mean condescending? Oh yeah, I am pointing out your vocabulary sucks. This is condescending. And yes, I like it..

Yea, I meant condescending, but my use of the wrong term indicates my vocabulary sucks?? BWAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH, you're an idiot then.

You and I disagree here. The courtroom is not all of society and not all courtrooms have armed bailiffs...

YOU said it "is not an integral part of...",,,, NOW you are saying its not in "ALL" courtrooms, which version do you want to go with in our next debate Mr.Kerry,,errr Mr Elephant???

And, so I did...

Which makes your point irrelevant. Kinda like saying, if Japan had defeated the US, they would have conquered Australia too, SOO WHAT???

By the way, was the South going to take over the Union and force them to join the Confederacy? No...

Because they knew they couldnt, hell, they couldnt even stop the North from invading them, a much more difficult endeavor.

Would you rather be hanged or spend life in a max security prison? I believe I would choose death. So killing people is not the clearly worse punishment. And so you and I disagree again...

Ahhh, yes, so you clearly know what its like to have to make that choice,,,,and you have done it how many times????

The country actually worked great, but the federal government WANTED more power so they TOOK it. The federal government is not supposed to run the country. State power was suppose to be the mechanism through which the vertical system of checks and balances on the federal government worked- remove it and the federal government goes unchecked. This country was formed as an aristocratic republic. It has become a mass democracy run by a central authority. I think it would be great if the federal government had less power...

I agree, so vote republican as they are the only party even trying to achieve that at any level, libertarians simply dont have a chance to win.

No they do not. It is a nice topic for you and your friends to discuss over coffee - that's it...

Yes, they do. Let me give you a taste. How much do you value your car? How much do you value your writing pen? If someone were to steal your car, would you give the same punishment as if they stole a writing pen from you? Clearly not, you indicate the value of something to you by the punishment you attatch to its destruction or loss. Hence, by giving the Death Penalty, our society is saying it values LIFE more than the Euros, who allow murderers to enjoy their days in jails, having sex, doing drugs, watching tv, playing sports, cards, etc.etc etc.

No, they did not. They were forced to be members after the Civil War. The states were allowed to secede according to the constitution. This right protected the CITIZENS of the state. They could leave the republic if they thought they were being unfairly persecuted. Examples would include lack of religious freedom, or taxation without representation or any of the reasons this country even exists. After the Civil War the choice of being a member state was ended...

So, these reasons you give for being able to secede, I dont see "having slavery" anywhere in there. Besides, do you know who fired the first shots?? bwahhahahahha, get a clue dude.

I admire your use of high school debate tactics. Ask a question with infinitely many answers, but only propose two. One that would insult everyone and one that is idiotic. How about this? The country functions in spite of the federal government running unchecked and growing more powerful and bigger everyday. I simply believe this cannot continue...

and yet you feel INSULTS are so "not juvenille".....

unchecked and more powerful and bigger everyday...."
talk about high school tactics, DUDE,,,since the US is getting more powerful and bigger everyday, I would suspect our govt would also....Unchecked? Really??? hmmmm, ever hear of the ACLU? or Nation watch? or the Supreme court? or elections? Now, before you bastardize yourself too badly,,,remember, you said UNCHECKED, not "largely unchecked" are "virtually" unchecked,,,,you said UNCHECKED, which MEANS ABSOLUTELY NONE, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH NADA CHECKS.....recanting of statements is allowed here by the way....

Clearly the insults are working great because you have addressed every single one of them. I imagine the insults would work on other message boards, but I get all the fulfillment I need right here at USMB. Please continue to amuse me. As for the topic - I thought you might want to move on, but I feel entitled to reply. It was my post you were "discussing"...

Hmmm, I see why you call your self Elephant now....Oh, did you insult me? Did I even say you insulted me??? bwahahhahah, ya know, throwing a baseball at someones head doesnt mean you hit it, read my words again, I merely asked if insulting is your preferred method....

I will.

Good, run along now sonny boy,,,its dark and your mommie is calling you.........

 

[Hagbard Celine]

maybe it would lower the divorce rate a bit if women considered their bodies a bit more sacred as in past years,,,,,

There were always whores and there will always be whores. Next...

and guess what, maybe, just maybe, there would be less single mother households, yes, SINGLE MOTHER HOUSEHOLDS, the single greatest contributing factor to creating an ever growing underclass, the greatest threat to our nation, bar none.

My mom had to switch churches because her fanatic preacher started railing about the "evils" of single parent households. I thought the "single greatest threat to our nation, bar none" was homos. A week before it was Arab terrorists. Last month it was child abductions. I guess in reality, it's whatever Fox News is spewing about in it's "News alerts."

Its a little more complex than "just claiming its her body" isnt it??

Nope, it isn't. It's her body, so it's her decision. End of story. You don't have any say on the matter unless it's your kid growing inside of her, and even then the final decision would still be hers to make.

 

[KarlMarx]

Why? Overturning Roe wouldn't make abortion illegal.

True.... overturning it would merely return the right to decide the legality of abortion back to the States.

Abortion was legal in New York State (where I live) before Roe vs. Wade. It wasn't legal in Texas, where Jane Roe lived

In 1967 Colorado and California legalized abortion. By June, 1970, when the State of New York passed the first Abortion on Demand Law (24-week limit), it became the 16th state to allow abortion. Due to an extremely loose interpretation of "mental health," California also had defacto abortion-on-demand. Alaska and Hawaii had liberal laws. Laws in the other 12 states, which included Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina and Virginia, were very restrictive, typically allowing abortion only for pregnancies due to assault rape, incest and life of the mother as well as for severe fetal handicap.

Between the passage of New York’s law in 1970 and the Supreme Court’s decision of January ’73, no more state legislatures voluntarily passed permissive abortion laws. Florida did because of a court order. The other states debated the issue in their legislatures, and all 33 voted against permitting abortion for any reason except to save the mother’s life. In April of ’72, New York State repealed its most permissive law. Governor Nelson Rockefeller vetoed the repeal, and the law remained in force. In the November ’72 elections, however, so many pro-abortion legislators were swept out of office that the New York General Assembly had enough votes to override the governor’s veto. Plans were made to again repeal the law when that legislature reconvened in 1973. Before it could act, however, the Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision and nothing was done.

....

After the pro-abortionists were stopped in the legislatures and in the courts, they tried referenda in two states, to allow abortion-on-demand until 20 weeks in the November 1972 election.

North Dakota, only 12% Catholic, voted 78% against abortion.

Michigan, an industrial state (pre-polled at 60% pro-abortion), voted 63% against abortion.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_7.asp

 

[LuvRPgrl]

There were always whores and there will always be whores. Next....

and this is relevant exactly how? HINT: we are talking about "rates" not existence of or non existence of

My mom had to switch churches because her fanatic preacher started railing about the "evils" of single parent households. .".

I suggest your mom look for a church who doesnt have a fanatical preacher but still understands the danger to society of single parenting.

I thought the "single greatest threat to our nation, bar none" was homos. A week before it was Arab terrorists. Last month it was child abductions. I guess in reality, it's whatever Fox News is spewing about in it's "News alerts.".

I really sorry to hear you think that, not sure where you got such an idea.

Nope, it isn't. It's her body, so it's her decision. End of story. You don't have any say on the matter unless it's your kid growing inside of her, and even then the final decision would still be hers to make.

wow, that makes a lot of sense. Its her body, or maybe its my kid inside of her , you sure you made up your mind on that one yet???

 

[William Joyce]

Another little known fact. States DID have state sponsored religion, the first amendment was simply so the feds couldnt tell the states which form of Christianity they would have as their State sponsored religion.

Right. I think Bork has said the it would be perfectly Constitutional for Massachussetts to become "The Presbyterian State of Massachussetts" and South Carolina to become "The Baptist State of South Carolina."

Of course, that won't happen today, but it shows how much power the secular forces have... a nation where the above is supposed to be permissible but in which putting up a Christmas tree will get you sued is way, way, way far from the original understanding.

 

[elephant]

I will start by saying, if it took you 30 days to come up with this post that is sad beyond words.

Yea, I meant condescending, but my use of the wrong term indicates my vocabulary sucks?? BWAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH, you're an idiot then.

Using the wrong word or using a word improperly is a clear indication that you have a weak vocabulary. I actually do not see how you can disagree with this.

YOU said it "is not an integral part of...",,,, NOW you are saying its not in "ALL" courtrooms, which version do you want to go with in our next debate Mr.Kerry,,errr Mr Elephant???

Actually, I said physical coercion should not be an integral part of a society. Go ahead and check it; I’ll wait... you back yet? And I believe this. Paraphrasing your response, what about courts and blah blah… . I responded by saying that a courtroom is not all of society. So again, what is your point?

Which makes your point irrelevant. Kinda like saying, if Japan had defeated the US, they would have conquered Australia too, SOO WHAT???

Again, I will disagree. I was pointing out that the Union no longer desired to have a free republic. Their solution was to take over the dissenting states. And the Union was prepared to take over those formerly free states and at any price. That’s it, nothing more. Your statement, that I could say this about any war, does not make my statement about the Civil War any less true.

Because they knew they couldnt, hell, they couldnt even stop the North from invading them, a much more difficult endeavor.

Does this justify the Union not just letting them go their own way? They took over the South because they could – now it makes sense.

Ahhh, yes, so you clearly know what its like to have to make that choice,,,,and you have done it how many times????

Does hypothesis not exist in your world? I see clearly that this is your way of deflecting the fact you see the fallacy of your logic.

My point, which you clearly understand, but are choosing to deny is this:

There is no clear answer as to which is the worse punishment. The states have the right to choose between two equivalents. Thus, it is a useless right.

I agree, so vote republican as they are the only party even trying to achieve that at any level, libertarians simply dont have a chance to win.

The current administration is not trying to give power back to the states. It is not making the federal government any smaller. You can vote for whomever you like. I can, too.

And again, hypothetically, what will you do when neither of the two current parties reflects your beliefs?

Yes, they do. Let me give you a taste. How much do you value your car? How much do you value your writing pen? If someone were to steal your car, would you give the same punishment as if they stole a writing pen from you? Clearly not, you indicate the value of something to you by the punishment you attatch to its destruction or loss. Hence, by giving the Death Penalty, our society is saying it values LIFE more than the Euros, who allow murderers to enjoy their days in jails, having sex, doing drugs, watching tv, playing sports, cards, etc.etc etc.

I do not own a car. I own many pens, though. So, I clearly value pens more or I would own a car instead. Also, where did I indicate that punishment sets value? Further, I never said that prison should be fun. Most importantly, these statements add no validity to your argument. What does this have to do with the federal government taking away states rights and Roe vs. Wade being a perfect example of these rights being taken away? How will this change my mind that the right for a state to choose between the death penalty and life in prison is a useless right? I will repeat what I have said before. A state’s ability to decide the right to privacy is clearly more important, but you want to talk about the death penalty, when it is a sideline issue.

So, these reasons you give for being able to secede, I dont see "having slavery" anywhere in there. Besides, do you know who fired the first shots?? bwahhahahahha, get a clue dude.

Well, that is because “having slavery” was neither a reason for forming this country nor for the Civil War. Actually, the great Abe himself, endorsed an amendment that would have made the right to have slaves untouchable by federal laws. You should read something besides middle school civics books; your ignorance is showing.

and yet you feel INSULTS are so "not juvenille".....

Why is “not juvenille” in quotes? You should use quotes for quoting people. Like this:

“The original Constitution gave so much power to the states that the feds didnt have enough power for the entire country to work very well, so they re wrote it giving the feds more power,” wrote LuvRPgrl. When exactly did they rewrite the Constitution? I must have missed that. Do you mean they reinterpreted it, so could have more power – because they wanted more power?

unchecked and more powerful and bigger everyday...."
talk about high school tactics, DUDE,,,since the US is getting more powerful and bigger everyday, I would suspect our govt would also....Unchecked? Really??? hmmmm, ever hear of the ACLU? or Nation watch? or the Supreme court? or elections? Now, before you bastardize yourself too badly,,,remember, you said UNCHECKED, not "largely unchecked" are "virtually" unchecked,,,,you said UNCHECKED, which MEANS ABSOLUTELY NONE, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH NADA CHECKS.....recanting of statements is allowed here by the way....

Has a presidential election ever been decided by the Supreme Court before? (1876, but this is still post Civil War) Did the Terry Schiavo case need a hearing in front of SCOTUS after the President used Congress to make it happen? Wow, now there is some clear separation of power. And to the point directly – Roe vs. Wade is the federal government putting in its two cents where it does not belong. The federal government took the power to decide away from the states. This case is not unique in that sense. The federal government, when given the opportunity, takes states rights. I consider that to be running unchecked. And I consider the lack of any real states rights also to be the federal government running unchecked vertically. States had rights for a reason – to check and balance the power of the federal government.

Hmmm, I see why you call your self Elephant now....Oh, did you insult me? Did I even say you insulted me??? bwahahhahah, ya know, throwing a baseball at someones head doesnt mean you hit it, read my words again, I merely asked if insulting is your preferred method....

Oh I see; you were just talking about my attempts to insult people. That is clear now, as well.

Good, run along now sonny boy,,,its dark and your mommie is calling you.........

You are the one who took 30 days to come up with something to say. I did not run anywhere.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Your assumption it took me 30 days, then you judge me by that assumption shows a lot of your character, or lack of. DUDE, some of us go on vacations,,,ever hear of those??? YOu know

where you fly to some remote exotic location and have wild and passionate sex with your wife day and night for two weeks???

ahhhh, never mind....

 

[LuvRPgrl]

as they say, you cant argue with a sick mind.

You take each statement and go in so many different tangents and draw so many false conclusions and bring up so many irrelevant points and make so many straw men, its not worth my time with you. adios....

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Just as an example, I will show how you contradict yourself in one singular statement, now consider I was to spend this much time on each statement you have made, and my wife would be very unhappy with all the hours I would be putting in...

YOU said:

"The federal government, when given the opportunity, takes states rights. I consider that to be running unchecked. "

"...WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY..." is a direct contradiction to "unchecked" unchecked doesnt need to be "given an opportunity,,if its unchecked, it will take the states rights whenever it pleases....

go ahead, give me a four page response, that will include strawmen, things I havent said, irrelevant issues, and maybe a word or two to actually comment on the real topic....

 

[theHawk]

The federal government, since the end of the Civil War, has been gaining power over the states and the checks and balances between the states and the federal government have become weaker. This leads me to believe that even if Roe vs. Wade is overturned the federal government will not give up its power over deciding the abortion issue.

Through reading this thread, you have referred to "the federal government" dozens of times. What agency are you talking about? None of your arguements make any sense in regards to "the federal government" taking over states rights because you are not being specific. Please be specific, otherwise it sounds like incoherent babble. Explain to us how "the federal government" is going to hold its "power over deciding the abortion issue" without an amendment to the constitution?

 

[elephant]

Through reading this thread, you have referred to "the federal government" dozens of times. What agency are you talking about? None of your arguements make any sense in regards to "the federal government" taking over states rights because you are not being specific. Please be specific, otherwise it sounds like incoherent babble. Explain to us how "the federal government" is going to hold its "power over deciding the abortion issue" without an amendment to the constitution?

The judicial branch took control over deciding right to privacy issues (including abortion) with their decision on Roe vs. Wade. No amendment required. The federal government currently controls the issue; it is that simple. It used to be decided by the states. I thought that was clear.

As for other branches. How about the FDA or the EPA? These are just made up ferderal level institutions which now dictate the rules to the states. The executive branch and Congress, through various federal agencies, both well known and obscure, have taken power over the states on issues like credit card laws, environmetal laws, etc.

I hope that clears it up for you.

 

[elephant]

Just as an example, I will show how you contradict yourself in one singular statement, now consider I was to spend this much time on each statement you have made, and my wife would be very unhappy with all the hours I would be putting in...

YOU said:

"The federal government, when given the opportunity, takes states rights. I consider that to be running unchecked. "

"...WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY..." is a direct contradiction to "unchecked" unchecked doesnt need to be "given an opportunity,,if its unchecked, it will take the states rights whenever it pleases....

go ahead, give me a four page response, that will include strawmen, things I havent said, irrelevant issues, and maybe a word or two to actually comment on the real topic....

Is this what want you?

The federal government is becoming more and more powerful and self regulating. The consistent and ever more prevelant violation of the states rights clauses included the Bill of Rights is a clear indication of this trend. The ever greater entanglement of the three federal level branches has all but removed the ability of states to regain any of these lost rights. At this point the system of checks and balances orignally included in the Constitution are dead. The rights the federal government has not taken away from the states arise from either lack of opportunity or lack of interest.

For the record, the reason you addressed nothing else in my response is because you are incapable. The truth is the thread is about Roe vs. Wade and what will change if it is overturned.

I have made clear, I believe overturning Roe vs. Wade will result in a change in the abortion laws, but not at the states level. Why? Because the federal government is not in the business of giving away power, but getting more of it.

You brought up the death penalty - a b-list issue at best. You would not answer my question about whether death or life in prison is worse because there is not clear answer. Which goes to my point that is not an important issue. Who cares about choosing between two equivalents?

If you wish to disagree with my premise that the federal government, through a new SCOTUS decision, will not return the right to privacy issue back to the states, an example of this administration or any other reducing the size or the scope of power of the federal government would be a good start. I think you will find though that the opposite is true - just bigger and more powerful all the time.

 

[elephant]

Excellent post. The founding fathers identified themselves not as Americans, but by the State they hailed from, Washington considered himself a Virginian for example (hope I got the right state with him )

Powers given to the Federal govt were suppose to be ONLY those necessary in order to make the union function, thats why the "default" authority went to the States.

Another little known fact. States DID have state sponsored religion, the first amendment was simply so the feds couldnt tell the states which form of Christianity they would have as their State sponsored religion.

You have just decided to disagree with me for fun.

What am I saying is different from WJ?

Let me go through it:

1) States have rights according to Constitution
2) Federal government through "legal trickery" takes some of them
3) You state a clear example of this premise using religion - indicating you understand
4) The system of checks and balances has broken down
5) WJ ends with "So how does the federal government end up running our whole lives?" The same as me saying the federal government now has unchecked power over the people and the states.

Where is the outrage? WJ said "whole lives" not just some of it, not most - but "whole".

You are a stone cold idiot.

 

[theHawk]

The judicial branch took control over deciding right to privacy issues (including abortion) with their decision on Roe vs. Wade. No amendment required. The federal government currently controls the issue; it is that simple. It used to be decided by the states. I thought that was clear.

As for other branches. How about the FDA or the EPA? These are just made up ferderal level institutions which now dictate the rules to the states. The executive branch and Congress, through various federal agencies, both well known and obscure, have taken power over the states on issues like credit card laws, environmetal laws, etc.

I hope that clears it up for you.

Yes thanks for clearing it up.
So *if* Roe is overturned, and the supreme court somehow outlaws abortion instead of turning it over the states, wouldn't the liberals all of a sudden start saying the federal government shouldn't have a say in this even though we haven't heard a peep from them for the last few decades because the judgement was in their favor?
I just have a hard time believing that the court itself would somehow make abortion outright illegal, it would have to have stipulations(like mother's life at risk, rape ect..), and that would require a law to be drafted.