Overturning Abortion

[dairygirl4u2c]

It seems like republican presidents usually appoint to the supreme court justices who wouldn't overturn abortion. That would mean that even if every president were republican, perhaps one in nine or so of the appointments wwould overturn. A problem arises that why should anyone vote prolife then at the federal level if that's the case?

Edited December 1, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[rollingcatholic]

Wouldn't a more intelligent question be: A problem arises that why should anyone vote Republican then at the federal level if that's the case?

[dairygirl4u2c]

Wouldn't a more intelligent reponse address and acknowledge the substance of the question instead of pointing out petty grammar mistakes? But thanks for the note.




I'd like responses to the above.

Here's my response, but it's sorta shody. Keep your respones to the above and your responses to my responses clearly distinct.

You might say, the only reason better appointments aren't made is because of the democratic opposition at appointing hearings. And the make up of Congress is so close as to rep's and dems that if more dems were voted, more strict prolife may be able to be appointed.

But are you sure that even were more reps elected, that the president would appoint a strict prolife?
It seems that the presidents are just picking who they like, not particularly in that issue, though perhaps not ignoring it, resulting in judges who don't overturn. Whats more, it seems like if the populace is generally against overturning it, the liklihood that a president who is staunchly prolife even making a real run is low.

furthermore, if most states vote democratic, what's the liklihood that your opposition's going to accomplish anything? You might say it at least ensures worse things don't happen, but I doubt most people want more abortion rights or anything.

just a rant. i'd like feedback.

Edited December 1, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[jswranch]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1133057' date='Dec 1 2006, 01:49 PM']
It seems like republican presidents usually appoint to the supreme court justices who wouldn't overturn abortion. That would mean that even if every president were republican, perhaps one in nine or so of the appointments wwould overturn. A problem arises that why should anyone vote prolife then at the federal level if that's the case?
[/quote]
I am under the impression republican presidents tend to appoint pro-life justices. Do you know different?

[pcabibi]

Abortion will Never be overturned, because the Judges' job is to uphold the constitution, and overturning Abortion will infringe civil liberties.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1133057' date='Dec 1 2006, 03:49 PM']
It seems like republican presidents usually appoint to the supreme court justices who wouldn't overturn abortion. That would mean that even if every president were republican, perhaps one in nine or so of the appointments wwould overturn. A problem arises that why should anyone vote prolife then at the federal level if that's the case?
[/quote]
Obviously, you are not very familiar with politics or recent history.

Roe v. Wade has not yet been brought to the SCOTUS to be challenged, so it is not clear exactly how every member would vote.
However, those Supreme Court justices regarded as most likely to vote pro-life have all been nominated by Republican presidents: John Roberts (nominated by George W. Bush), Scalia (Reagan), Thomas (G. H. W. Bush), and Alito (G. W. Bush).

Those nominated by Democratic presidents have all been solidly pro-abortion liberals (Ginsberg and Breyer, both nominated by Clinton.)

During every SCOTUS vacancy during a Republican presidency, the liberal Democrats have threatened to block any nomination they see as posing a potential threat to Roe. V. Wade. (Recall the intense hounding they put Roberts through about whether he would overturn Roe.) He passed anyway, as did Clarence Thomas. Though earlier, when the Dems had control of Congress, they did successfully block the appointment of conservative Reagan nominee, Judge Bork. Reagan backed down and replaced him with the "moderate" Kennedy, who passed. Reagan also appointed Souter, who was regarded as a "stealth conservative", but proved to actually vote more liberal.

Anyone blatantly and vocally pro-life gets shot down by the Dems in congress, and the only way a nominee can get passed is to keep quiet on how he will vote.

I think the Republican pesidents could have done better, but it is obvious the blame goes mostly to the liberal democrats in Congress, who "Bork" any conservative judicial nominees.

Anyone who says the Democrats are helping the pro-life cause more than the Republicans here is either woefully ignorant or lying through his teeth.
In attempting to block any nominee who shows any promise of being pro-life, the Dems have truly acted as the "party of death." That is a huge reason why Catholics should keep liberal Dems out of Washington. The recent Dem victories do not bode well for the pro-life cause.

[quote name='JClives' post='1133211' date='Dec 1 2006, 06:30 PM']
Abortion will Never be overturned, because the Judges' job is to uphold the constitution, and overturning Abortion will infringe civil liberties.
[/quote]
So quote for me where exactly in the U.S. Constitution, abortion is protected as a "right."
Actually, don't waste your time, because it's not there.

All these people who keep saying abortion is protected by the Constitution have obviously never the read the Constitution, and are completely ignorant of what it states.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, in 1974, nobody saw abortion as a "Constitutionally protected right," and most states had laws against abortion.

Legally, Roe v. Wade was bad law. It was not based on what the Constitution actually said, but on a pro-abortion liberal agenda. It is a prime example of "judicial activism." (Judges "interpreting" law to fit their own agenda, rather than going by what the law actually says.)

Edited December 2, 2006 by Socrates

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1133432' date='Dec 1 2006, 10:49 PM']
So quote for me where exactly in the U.S. Constitution, abortion is protected as a "right."
Actually, don't waste your time, because it's not there.

All these people who keep saying abortion is protected by the Constitution have obviously never the read the Constitution, and are completely ignorant of what it states.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, in 1974, nobody saw abortion as a "Constitutionally protected right," and most states had laws against abortion.

Legally, Roe v. Wade was bad law. It was not based on what the Constitution actually said, but on a pro-abortion liberal agenda. It is a prime example of "judicial activism." (Judges "interpreting" law to fit their own agenda, rather than going by what the law actually says.)
[/quote]

of course abortion isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution. The first abortion laws didn't begin to appear until the 1820's. Roe VS wade established that the "Right to choose" was protected under the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments. Roe VS wade is correct when it ruled that the Pro-Life standpoint was in fact an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment, a denial of equal protection of the laws, and a violation of the Ninth Amendment (which states that certain rights not specified in the first eight amendments are reserved to the people)

The most important ammendment the decision was based on though was the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the "right of privacy."

So yes in effect, Banning abortions is unconstitutional... and overturning Roe vs Wade would result in further desecration of protected rights... as if the military commisions act didn't do enough damage.

Edited December 2, 2006 by JClives

[Socrates]

[quote name='JClives' post='1133440' date='Dec 1 2006, 11:05 PM']
of course abortion isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution. The first abortion laws didn't begin to appear until the 1820's. Roe VS wade established that the "Right to choose" was protected under the 1st Amendment. Roe VS wade is correct when it ruled that the Pro-Life standpoint was in fact an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment, a denial of equal protection of the laws, and a violation of the Ninth Amendment (which states that certain rights not specified in the first eight amendments are reserved to the people)

The most important ammendment the decision was based on though was the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the "right of privacy."

So yes in effect, Banning abortions is unconstitutional... and overturning Roe vs Wade would result in further desecration of protected rights... as if the military commisions act didn't do enough damage.
[/quote]
First Amendment: [quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]
Abortion has nothing to do with freedom of religion, speech, or press.
None of these things demands the legality of killing innocent persons.
Of course, in the 20th century, this amendment has been grotesquly misinterpreted by activist liberals.

Second Amendment:[quote]The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[/quote]
The "right" to abortion is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution, so this is likewise irrelevent.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1. [quote]All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of[b] life[/b], liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/quote]
Abortion deprives a person of life. And liberty does not include liberty to murder.

And the so-called "right to privacy" is baloney made up to justify abortion-on-demand. It's not even in the Constitution.

And Roe v. Wade is in blatant contridiction of the 10th Amendment:[quote][b]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.[/b] [/quote]
Thus the federal government has no authority whatsoever to overturn state abortion laws. It is unrightful federal usurpation of power.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1133445' date='Dec 1 2006, 11:23 PM']
First Amendment:
Abortion has nothing to do with freedom of religion, speech, or press.
None of these things demands the legality of killing innocent persons.
Of course, in the 20th century, this amendment has been grotesquly misinterpreted by activist liberals.[/quote]

Apparently you misread my post. I stated that any LAW that was pro-life in nature was deemed an unlawful establishment of the church which is a DIRECT violation of the first ammendment. Roe vs Wade rightly decided that personal fundemental rights overrode the rights of an institution, and that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional for that fact. If you didn't have this law upheld... you could theoretically have a satanist state mandate ritualistic sex with animals every Thursday.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1133445' date='Dec 1 2006, 11:23 PM']
Second Amendment:
The "right" to abortion is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution, so this is likewise irrelevent.[/quote]

And where did I mention the 2nd ammendment?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1133445' date='Dec 1 2006, 11:23 PM']
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.
Abortion deprives a person of life. And liberty does not include liberty to murder.

And the so-called "right to privacy" is baloney made up to justify abortion-on-demand. It's not even in the Constitution.[/quote]

how was it made up? Roe VS wade wsn't unil the 1970's, the 9th and 10th ammendment was in the Bill of RIGHTS lol

Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

How does that NOT imply privacy?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1133445' date='Dec 1 2006, 11:23 PM']
And Roe v. Wade is in blatant contridiction of the 10th Amendment:
Thus the federal government has no authority whatsoever to overturn state abortion laws. It is unrightful federal usurpation of power.
[/quote]

According to the 14th ammendment... which was ratified in 1868...

[i]No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[/i]

State constitutions are governed by the US constitution. The federal government has EVERY right to overturn a state law that is in contradiction to Ammendments in the US constitution. that's substantive due process.

Edited December 2, 2006 by JClives

[pcabibi]

Alot of right wingers overlook the first ammendment. While I have alot of respect for those who champion the pro-life cause... You have to understand that the pro-life stance is a religious stance

The first ammendment clearly states

[i]Congress shall make no law [b]respecting an establishment of religion[/b], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;[/i]

The church is protected from the state and the state is protected from the church.

I also feel that the tax exempt status for churches is bogus due to this ammendment... The churches should be tax Immune... not exempt... but that's a whole nother debate.

Point is... this issue goes alot deeper than people may realize. To allow religous influence to overthrow Roe VS wade... as sick as it sounds... it will unravel the very fabric the United States is constructed on.

Edited December 2, 2006 by JClives

[Socrates]

[quote name='JClives' post='1133450' date='Dec 1 2006, 11:46 PM']
Apparently you misread my post. I stated that any LAW that was pro-life in nature was deemed an unlawful establishment of the church which is a DIRECT violation of the first ammendment. Roe vs Wade rightly decided that personal fundemental rights overrode the rights of an institution, and that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional for that fact. If you didn't have this law upheld... you could theoretically have a satanist state mandate ritualistic sex with animals every Thursday.[/quote]
The first Amendment forbids Congress to establish a national Church by law. They did not want to have the American equivalent of the Church of England across the pond, which had a history of outlawing and persecuting other churches. That is what "establishment of religion" meant to the framers. It was never intended to ban any form of religion (or even morals) from the public sphere. The fact is that in the early years of our Republic, the individual states had their own repsective official state churches, and this was not seen as being in violation of the Constitution.
It was only in the mid-twentieth century that atheist activists began "interpreting" the first amendment to mean that religion (and even "religious" morality) must be completely divorced from public life.

And it is a HUGE stretch (to say the very least) to claim that laws against establishment of a federal state religion demand that abortion be protected as a "constitutional right"!
Abortion is not about religion - it is about protecting human life, which is part of natural law. Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike have all traditionally opposed abortion. There are even atheists against abortion!

Protecting human life should be a common goal of law in every civilized country.
It cannot be compared to, say, a law requiring everyone to attend Mass each Sunday.

[quote]And where did I mention the 2nd ammendment?[/quote]
My bad; that should have read: "Ninth Amendment" which I proceded to quote: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
(It was late, and I was brain-dead. Sorry.)
I went on to point out that killing babies is not one of the rights enumnerated, so the ninth amendment is irrelevent to abortion.

[quote] how was it made up? Roe VS wade wsn't unil the 1970's, the 9th and 10th ammendment was in the Bill of RIGHTS lol[/quote]
Well certainly, no one saw it that way for well over a hundred years!

As I pointed out, none of those amendments says [i]anything[/i] about a universal "right" to abortion!

[quote]Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

How does that NOT imply privacy?
According to the 14th ammendment... which was ratified in 1868...

[i]No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[/i]

State constitutions are governed by the US constitution. The federal government has EVERY right to overturn a state law that is in contradiction to Ammendments in the US constitution. that's substantive due process.[/quote]
[i]Nobody[/i] has a right to kill babies so the Ninth Amendment is irrelevant.

The Tenth Amendment, as I already pointed out, proves that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional.
[quote]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/quote]
Since there is no "right" to abortion listed previously in the constitution, the Federal government has no right whatsoever to force abortion on demand upon the individual states. That is for the states and the people of each state to decide.

And ironically, the Fourteenth Amendment lists [b]life[/b] among those things which the state shall not deprive people of. And abortion does just that!
It doesn't say the state shall not deprive people of abortion!

Again, you have failed to provide anything in the Constitution which states that abortion is a universal right.
Such a creative "interpretation" is simply modern liberal hogwash.

[Socrates]

[quote name='JClives' post='1133515' date='Dec 2 2006, 02:39 AM']
Alot of right wingers overlook the first ammendment. While I have alot of respect for those who champion the pro-life cause... You have to understand that the pro-life stance is a religious stance

The first ammendment clearly states

[i]Congress shall make no law [b]respecting an establishment of religion[/b], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;[/i]

The church is protected from the state and the state is protected from the church.

I also feel that the tax exempt status for churches is bogus due to this ammendment... The churches should be tax Immune... not exempt... but that's a whole nother debate.

Point is... this issue goes alot deeper than people may realize. To allow religous influence to overthrow Roe VS wade... as sick as it sounds... it will unravel the very fabric the United States is constructed on.
[/quote]
As I've pointed out, protecting human life is not a purely religious issue. There are even "atheists for life." (Someone provided a link to their website on an old thread).

If we are to get rid of any and every law simply because it is compliance with a religion's teachings, then we must get rid of all laws against murder ("Thou shalt not kill" - you know), as well as laws agaisnt theft ("Thou shalt not steal"), and perjury ("Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.")

And states and local governments have laws about everything from leash laws, to highway speed limits to gun registration, to building and business permits.

Why should abortion be given such special protected status that almost nothing else is afforded??

Protection of innocent life is not simply the province of one particular religion.
If the law does not protect every innocent human life, it has failed.

And why should laws which reflect godless atheist values be given precedent over those which reflect morality held by religious people?

The United States has been around for almost two-hundred years before Roe v. Wade. Overturning it would hardly "unravel the very fabric the United States is constructed on"!

[Kosh]

Explain to me how you justify protecting the LIFE of an unborn child, from keeping brutally slaughtering thousands of them legal, explain to me why on EARTH you think being Pro-Life is a RELIGIOUS view.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1133862' date='Dec 2 2006, 10:47 PM']
The first Amendment forbids Congress to establish a national Church by law. They did not want to have the American equivalent of the Church of England across the pond, which had a history of outlawing and persecuting other churches. That is what "establishment of religion" meant to the framers. It was never intended to ban any form of religion (or even morals) from the public sphere. The fact is that in the early years of our Republic, the individual states had their own repsective official state churches, and this was not seen as being in violation of the Constitution.
It was only in the mid-twentieth century that atheist activists began "interpreting" the first amendment to mean that religion (and even "religious" morality) must be completely divorced from public life.

And it is a HUGE stretch (to say the very least) to claim that laws against establishment of a federal state religion demand that abortion be protected as a "constitutional right"!
Abortion is not about religion - it is about protecting human life, which is part of natural law. Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike have all traditionally opposed abortion. There are even atheists against abortion![/quote]

the First Amendment's "establishment" of a religion implied sponsorship, financial support, and [b]active involvement in religious activity.[/b] The Courts have ALWAYS held that the First Amendment reaches far past the classic 18th century establishments of church and state. Just look at past court cases... Walz vs Tax Comm in 1970... or Everson vs the Board of Education in 1947. BOTH were before Roe vs Wade. Walz vs Tax Comm was to obtain public funds for the aid and support of various private religious schools. . . . while Everson vs the BOE was about introducing religious education and observances into the public schools. Both avenues were decided to be closed by the Constitution.

The morality of certain Americans is not the issue here. It's the freedom of the individual. The point that there are athiests against abortion is just as insignificant as the fact that there are christians whom are pro choice; because, if you were to look at the statistics of who is pro life and who is pro choice... you will notice a staggering divide with religion being the common denominator. You can't take exeptions to the rule as evidence because democracy is based on majorities.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1133862' date='Dec 2 2006, 10:47 PM']
Protecting human life should be a common goal of law in every civilized country.
It cannot be compared to, say, a law requiring everyone to attend Mass each Sunday.[/quote]

It's not that simple. I agree that life should be preserved. However, I also agree that individual choice should be preserved. Abortion is a totaly different animal because it is no way as simple as walking up behind someone and sticking a knife in thier back. If an individual chooses to walk up to someone with mallice and end his life, one must be prepared for the harsh consequenses of the justice system. You can't liken a women that either made a drunken mistake, was raped, or is in danger of having a pregnancy terminate her life... to someone that intentionally stabbed, shot, poisoned or asphixiated another human being out of mallice. The mindstate is 100% different and therefore is not murder. It's not the right decision... but it's definatley not murder. It's inside of HER body. For a man... assuming you are a man... to have a Pro-life standpoint on this is purely religious and/or philisophical. And with the establishment cases I've cited above... it has already been determined that in this society... the religious and philisophical thoughts of others do not and should not take precedence over the rights of an individual.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1133862' date='Dec 2 2006, 10:47 PM']
My bad; that should have read: "Ninth Amendment" which I proceded to quote: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
(It was late, and I was brain-dead. Sorry.)
I went on to point out that killing babies is not one of the rights enumnerated, so the ninth amendment is irrelevent to abortion.
Well certainly, no one saw it that way for well over a hundred years!

As I pointed out, none of those amendments says [i]anything[/i] about a universal "right" to abortion!
[i]Nobody[/i] has a right to kill babies so the Ninth Amendment is irrelevant. [/quote]

This is such a bogus speculation because if I used your logic in my arguement... it would look something like this...

"No where in the constitustion does it outline unborn embryo's as being a soverign person or citizen"

While it's true... you can't take those facts as gospel, because the founding fathers were a little bit more concerned with building a democracy where all PERSONS and CITIZENS had the freedom of choice and the right to life, than to outline abortion rights and restrictions. An embryo at that stage doesn't even have enough braincells to even know what a choice is... let alone make one.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1133862' date='Dec 2 2006, 10:47 PM']
The Tenth Amendment, as I already pointed out, proves that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional.

Since there is no "right" to abortion listed previously in the constitution, the Federal government has no right whatsoever to force abortion on demand upon the individual states. That is for the states and the people of each state to decide.

And ironically, the Fourteenth Amendment lists [b]life[/b] among those things which the state shall not deprive people of. And abortion does just that!
It doesn't say the state shall not deprive people of abortion! [/quote]

there is no right outlined in the constitution that specifically protects your ability to sit in your house naked and pour spagetti O's over your head either. But it's implied. Granted it doesnt' involve human life, and I understand you taking the life standpoing... but to say that just because abortion isn't SPECIFICALLY outlined in the constitution is totally inane, because none of the prividges we have as a result of our rights are specifically outlined.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1133862' date='Dec 2 2006, 10:47 PM']
Again, you have failed to provide anything in the Constitution which states that abortion is a universal right.
Such a creative "interpretation" is simply modern liberal hogwash.
[/quote]

Again, you have failed to proove why that's important. Such a superficial "interpretation" isn't even up for discussion.


Good debate Soc I'm enjoying this

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1133870' date='Dec 2 2006, 11:08 PM']
Explain to me how you justify protecting the LIFE of an unborn child, from keeping brutally slaughtering thousands of them legal, explain to me why on EARTH you think being Pro-Life is a RELIGIOUS view.
[/quote]

Because of the statistics. I'll try to find the polls... as I can't remember the ones right off of the top of my head... but from what I remember, amongst thouse religious and unreligous people polled...There is an undeniable coorelation between religion and the pro-life standpoint.