Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/18/2007 8:27:36 AM EDT
I mean there is a VERY compelling argument that there should be NO SCOTUS ruling and that it should be returned to a states rights issue.

Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:30:38 AM EDT
[#1]
NO NO NO!!!!
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:31:06 AM EDT
[#2]
It should be left up to the states, just like it was before. I'm in favor of abortion but it's the principle of the thing, the federal government isn't supposed to get it's head in these kinds of things.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:31:12 AM EDT
[#3]
If you believe it is murder, then treat it as murder. If you don't, then it is a state issue - the constitution doesn't address it.
The right to privacy is already defined weakly, but it clearly has nothing to do with the issue.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:31:33 AM EDT
[#4]
There is nothing in the Constitution giving the right of abortion.  It should have been left up to the states.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:38:23 AM EDT
[#5]
Roe V. Wade made it a Federal issue.

And the recent Supreme Court blocking of partial birth abortions continue to make it an issue.

Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:40:30 AM EDT
[#6]

Quoted:
Roe V. Wade made it a Federal issue.

And the recent Supreme Court blocking of partial birth abortions continue to make it an issue.



And both cases were bad cases.

It is a state issue.

There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:41:51 AM EDT
[#7]

Quoted:
If you believe it is murder, then treat it as murder. If you don't, then it is a state issue - the constitution doesn't address it.
The right to privacy is already defined weakly, but it clearly has nothing to do with the issue.


Heck, the constitution doesn't really address murder either. Only in very specific cases does a murder case hit a federal prosecutor's desk.

This entire abortion issue is a state level issue. Nothing about murder, abortion, or reproduction in general is mentioned in the Constitution.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:42:51 AM EDT
[#8]
Amendment X

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.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:43:33 AM EDT
[#9]

Quoted:
Roe V. Wade made it a Federal issue.

And the recent Supreme Court blocking of partial birth abortions continue to make it an issue.



The only reason for the federal ban on partial birth abortions is because of RvW/

Illegaly taking a human life is murder, and should be treated as such.

There is no crime that an unborn child has committed, so there is no way for that child to be guilty of a crime that would carry a death sentence. Hence, every doctor that does an abortion is a murderer, and the 'mothers' are just as guilty.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:58:03 AM EDT
[#10]

Quoted:

There is no crime that an unborn child has committed, so there is no way for that child to be guilty of a crime that would carry a death sentence. Hence, every doctor that does an abortion is a murderer, and the 'mothers' are just as guilty.


Here we go again.....


And i don't see abortion anywhere in the constitution, so that makes it a state issue.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:01:03 AM EDT
[#11]

Quoted:
Should abortion be a Federal issue? I mean there is a VERY compelling argument that there should be NO SCOTUS ruling and that it should be returned to a states rights issue.



No.  I agree it should be a state issue.  IMO Amendments IX and X make that pretty clear, but I'm not wearing a black robe or holding a wooden mallet...

Amendment IX

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

Amendment X

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.

Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:08:27 AM EDT
[#12]
Sure, leave it up to the states. It will get put on Ballots, ACLU will sue and Abortion will be ruled on from the bench by judges.

Then those states which allow the abortions can advertise to other states, as in gay marriage, and we can have abortion clinics on exit number 1 on all the interstates.

Sounds great!

Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:11:05 AM EDT
[#13]

Quoted:
Amendment X

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.


+1 The bastadizing of the 10th will be looked upon as the foundation on which this country was destroryed. They have, and will continue, to overstep their boundries.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:12:55 AM EDT
[#14]
I believe most issues should be State issues... Education, gun rights, abortion, etc.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:18:17 AM EDT
[#15]

Quoted:
I believe most issues should be State issues... Education, gun rights, abortion, etc.


Well that makes sense...Education rcv's federal dollars, guns rights are in the constitution.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:22:55 AM EDT
[#16]
No.  Abortion should be an issue for each individual to decide.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:25:23 AM EDT
[#17]
Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:41:40 AM EDT
[#18]
I am pro-choice, and I say overturn Roe v Wade.  Abortion is a state issue.  The federal government has no jurisdiction.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:43:13 AM EDT
[#19]

Quoted:
Illegaly taking a human life is murder, and should be treated as such.

There is no crime that an unborn child has committed, so there is no way for that child to be guilty of a crime that would carry a death sentence. Hence, every doctor that does an abortion is a murderer, and the 'mothers' are just as guilty.


Respectfully, the "abortion = murder" debate is beyond the scope of the OP's topic.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:48:42 AM EDT
[#20]
Pro-choice yet anti-Roe v Wade is a stand most people can't comprehend since it isn't chocked full of emotion and tears.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:53:39 AM EDT
[#21]
I'm Pro-life (under 90% of circumstances.) If it takes federal action to protect the lives of Americans, then so be it.

Abortion is murder its that simple.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:54:04 AM EDT
[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Illegaly taking a human life is murder, and should be treated as such.

There is no crime that an unborn child has committed, so there is no way for that child to be guilty of a crime that would carry a death sentence. Hence, every doctor that does an abortion is a murderer, and the 'mothers' are just as guilty.


Respectfully, the "abortion = murder" debate is beyond the scope of the OP's topic.


Not really; it is the hinge upon which the applicability of the 5th amendment turns...
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:55:18 AM EDT
[#23]

Quoted:
If it takes federal action to protect the lives of Americans, then so be it.


Hello slippery slope.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:56:33 AM EDT
[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

...Respectfully, the "abortion = murder" debate is beyond the scope of the OP's topic.


Not really; it is the hinge upon which the applicability of the 5th amendment turns...


People have pretty firm ideas about whether or not a fertilized egg or a very early embryo qualifies as a "person" in terms of civil rights.  I agree with the Admiral that it's out of scope of the thread, but there's really no way to prevent these discussions from going down that path.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:57:45 AM EDT
[#25]
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:59:47 AM EDT
[#26]

Quoted:
Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Interestingly enough the 14th amendment binding that on the states was the basis for the decision, which was more about a right to privacy than just the abortion issue itself.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 10:04:14 AM EDT
[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Illegaly taking a human life is murder, and should be treated as such.

There is no crime that an unborn child has committed, so there is no way for that child to be guilty of a crime that would carry a death sentence. Hence, every doctor that does an abortion is a murderer, and the 'mothers' are just as guilty.


Respectfully, the "abortion = murder" debate is beyond the scope of the OP's topic.


Not really; it is the hinge upon which the applicability of the 5th amendment turns...


Not really.

Technically murder could be legal under the US Contitution. And really was for a while (dueling).

The 5th only applies to the state taking away your life without due process of law. Not people. This is why if you murder somebody the locals or state cops typically show up, not the FBI. And then your respective state prosecutes you (except in some cases like if you killed a federal LEO, but that's different).
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 10:11:14 AM EDT
[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Illegaly taking a human life is murder, and should be treated as such.

There is no crime that an unborn child has committed, so there is no way for that child to be guilty of a crime that would carry a death sentence. Hence, every doctor that does an abortion is a murderer, and the 'mothers' are just as guilty.


Respectfully, the "abortion = murder" debate is beyond the scope of the OP's topic.


It is and thank you.  I don't agree with abortion however it just seems to be another way the Fed is taking away our states rights.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 10:18:16 AM EDT
[#29]

Quoted:
Sure, leave it up to the states. It will get put on Ballots, ACLU will sue and Abortion will be ruled on from the bench by judges.

Then those states which allow the abortions can advertise to other states, as in gay marriage, and we can have abortion clinics on exit number 1 on all the interstates.

Sounds great!



Right next to the cigarette, liquor and fireworks stands!!!

FUCK YEEEEEAHHHH!!!
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 10:28:29 AM EDT
[#30]

Quoted:
I mean there is a VERY compelling argument that there should be NO SCOTUS ruling and that it should be returned to a states rights issue.



Entirely correct!
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 10:41:26 AM EDT
[#31]

Should abortion be a Federal issue?


No.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 10:45:38 AM EDT
[#32]
No.  I agree with Justices Thomas and Scalia on that point.  Thomas's concurrance in today's case:




JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey, supra, at 979 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 980–983 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts didnot address it. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 727, n. 2 (2005) (THOMAS, J., concurring).
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 11:27:26 AM EDT
[#33]

Quoted:
It should be left up to the states, just like it was before. I'm in favor of abortion but it's the principle of the thing, the federal government isn't supposed to get it's head in these kinds of things.


Regardless of your feelings on abortion, no government official has a place between you and your wife. Learn it, live it.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 11:32:03 AM EDT
[#34]
Doctors who perfom abortions should be hung, just as the Nazis were at Nurenburg.  Fucking sick way to make a living.  
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 11:35:33 AM EDT
[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If it takes federal action to protect the lives of Americans, then so be it.


Hello slippery slope.


Hello, it took federal action to liberate an enslaved people too. I don't regret that it happened.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 11:40:47 AM EDT
[#36]

Quoted:
Sure, leave it up to the states. It will get put on Ballots, ACLU will sue and Abortion will be ruled on from the bench by judges.

Then those states which allow the abortions can advertise to other states, as in gay marriage, and we can have abortion clinics on exit number 1 on all the interstates.

Sounds great!



Hardly.  Abortion is dying (pun intended); most abortion providers are nearing retirement age, and very few new doctors wish to do the procedure.  Many states have only one clinic in operation or none at all.  And the number of abortions performed in the US has been steadily declining for the past 20 years.

If abortion were left up to the states, you'll end up with the situation that existed prior to Roe v. Wade:  Banned or heavily restricted in most (red) states, legal in a few (blue) states.  And the overall number of abortions would significantly decrease, as the procedure would be largely unavailable except for emergencies in most of the country.

Incidentally, you would also see an increase in adoptable babies, which was the way most unwanted children were disposed of before abortion became legal.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 11:47:06 AM EDT
[#37]

Quoted:
If abortion were left up to the states, you'll end up with the situation that existed prior to Roe v. Wade:  Banned or heavily restricted in most (red) states, legal in a few (blue) states.  And the overall number of abortions would significantly decrease, as the procedure would be largely unavailable except for emergencies in most of the country.

Incidentally, you would also see an increase in adoptable babies, which was the way most unwanted children were disposed of before abortion became legal.


Crime will also likely rise due to more children being born into impoverished and uneducated families, and probably more welfare spending too.  And some babies might be carried for adoption, others will resort to the coat hanger.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 11:48:41 AM EDT
[#38]
NO!!!  States rights issue if an issue at all.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 12:37:52 PM EDT
[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If it takes federal action to protect the lives of Americans, then so be it.


Hello slippery slope.


Hello, it took federal action to liberate an enslaved people too. I don't regret that it happened.


That is certainly one way, in a revisionist history kind of way, to look at it.  In another way of looking at it, slavery was already a dying issue that looked great in the papers after the Civil War was over.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 12:45:04 PM EDT
[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If it takes federal action to protect the lives of Americans, then so be it.


Hello slippery slope.


Hello, it took federal action to liberate an enslaved people too. I don't regret that it happened.


That is certainly one way, in a revisionist history kind of way, to look at it.  In another way of looking at it, slavery was already a dying issue that looked great in the papers after the Civil War was over.


Revisionist my arse,

What if question......

If the sovereign state of Indiana started killing undesirable yet innocent people, don't you think the Feds should step in to protect the lives of its people?

Or would it be best to just wait until the Indiana state governments stopped the murder since it was likely to decline any way?

I'm all for limiting the Federal government, and restoring many States rights, but clearly the feds have thier place: To Ensure States rights do not violate basic individual rights.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 12:55:44 PM EDT
[#41]

Quoted:


Abortion is murder its that simple.


Clearly, it isn't that simple. If it were, we would not be having this discussion. The country has been pretty evenly devided on the matter for 50 years now. Do you really think that half the country just 'doesn't get it'?

It may be simple to you, but it remains a derisive and complex issue. At the extremes of both sides are people who view it as a clear cut and simple matter. Both extremes are very wrong. Given how most of the complexity comes from social and cultural differences between the states, I don't see how this is every going to be resolved in the Supreme Court or any federal agency. This is something only the states can figure out.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 1:05:55 PM EDT
[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:


Abortion is murder its that simple.


Clearly, it isn't that simple. If it were, we would not be having this discussion. The country has been pretty evenly devided on the matter for 50 years now. Do you really think that half the country just 'doesn't get it'?

It may be simple to you, but it remains a derisive and complex issue. At the extremes of both sides are people who view it as a clear cut and simple matter. Both extremes are very wrong. Given how most of the complexity comes from social and cultural differences between the states, I don't see how this is every going to be resolved in the Supreme Court or any federal agency. This is something only the states can figure out.


the line in red made me laugh out loud.

Yes, I do think half the country, if not more, doesn't get a lot of things.

Only under the most dire of circumstances should murder of innocents be allowed.

It goes right back to how people should be held accountable for thier own actions, an innocent child does not deserve to executed because of the carelessness of its parents.

Its wrong in 1000 ways, and it should be stopped.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 1:07:08 PM EDT
[#43]
only if you think the feds have jurisdiction over murder.*



*and if you think abortion is murder
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 1:07:48 PM EDT
[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:


Abortion is murder its that simple.


Clearly, it isn't that simple. If it were, we would not be having this discussion. The country has been pretty evenly devided on the matter for 50 years now. Do you really think that half the country just 'doesn't get it'?

It may be simple to you, but it remains a derisive and complex issue. At the extremes of both sides are people who view it as a clear cut and simple matter. Both extremes are very wrong. Given how most of the complexity comes from social and cultural differences between the states, I don't see how this is every going to be resolved in the Supreme Court or any federal agency. This is something only the states can figure out.


the line in red made me laugh out loud.

Yes, I do think half the country, if not more, doesn't get a lot of things.

Only under the most dire of circumstances should murder of innocents be allowed.

It goes right back to how people should be held accountable for thier own actions, an innocent child does not deserve to executed because of the carelessness of its parents.

Its wrong in 1000 ways, and it should be stopped.


Many people don't equate it to the murder of a person so there again the complexity of the issue as he points out rears its head.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 1:10:23 PM EDT
[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:


Abortion is murder its that simple.


Clearly, it isn't that simple. If it were, we would not be having this discussion. The country has been pretty evenly devided on the matter for 50 years now. Do you really think that half the country just 'doesn't get it'?

It may be simple to you, but it remains a derisive and complex issue. At the extremes of both sides are people who view it as a clear cut and simple matter. Both extremes are very wrong. Given how most of the complexity comes from social and cultural differences between the states, I don't see how this is every going to be resolved in the Supreme Court or any federal agency. This is something only the states can figure out.


the line in red made me laugh out loud.

Yes, I do think half the country, if not more, doesn't get a lot of things.

Only under the most dire of circumstances should murder of innocents be allowed.

It goes right back to how people should be held accountable for thier own actions, an innocent child does not deserve to executed because of the carelessness of its parents.

Its wrong in 1000 ways, and it should be stopped.


Many people don't equate it to the murder of a person so there again the complexity of the issue as he points out rears its head.


Those people are just wrong, take a DNA sample, that should prove it to them if it doesn't well......... some people are just stupid.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 1:14:32 PM EDT
[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:


Abortion is murder its that simple.


Clearly, it isn't that simple. If it were, we would not be having this discussion. The country has been pretty evenly devided on the matter for 50 years now. Do you really think that half the country just 'doesn't get it'?

It may be simple to you, but it remains a derisive and complex issue. At the extremes of both sides are people who view it as a clear cut and simple matter. Both extremes are very wrong. Given how most of the complexity comes from social and cultural differences between the states, I don't see how this is every going to be resolved in the Supreme Court or any federal agency. This is something only the states can figure out.


the line in red made me laugh out loud.

Yes, I do think half the country, if not more, doesn't get a lot of things.

Only under the most dire of circumstances should murder of innocents be allowed.

It goes right back to how people should be held accountable for thier own actions, an innocent child does not deserve to executed because of the carelessness of its parents.

Its wrong in 1000 ways, and it should be stopped.


Many people don't equate it to the murder of a person so there again the complexity of the issue as he points out rears its head.


I think it should be a federal issue.  Either it is a human(in which case its murder) or it's not a human(not murder).
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 1:25:27 PM EDT
[#47]
On the subject of fed vs. state I agree it should be a state issue, along with many other things.

Still, I agree with the ruling.  Something should advocate for the rights of a life that hasn't the ability to speak on it's behalf (I believe life begins once sperm meets egg).
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 1:34:52 PM EDT
[#48]

Quoted:

If the sovereign state of Indiana started killing undesirable yet innocent people, don't you think the Feds should step in to protect the lives of its people?

Or would it be best to just wait until the Indiana state governments stopped the murder since it was likely to decline any way?

I'm all for limiting the Federal government, and restoring many States rights, but clearly the feds have thier place: To Ensure States rights do not violate basic individual rights.


ARGHHHHHH.

The State of Indiana isn't killing anybody. In fact, the State isn't killing anybody.

Abortion, which I disagree with, is the act of one guy (a doc) killing somebody else. It's one private citizen killing another.

Now, the Federal government, and the states cannot take your life without due process of law. Trial, all that crap.

A private citizen, however, CAN kill somebody without due process of law and have it be totally legal. In fact, it happens all the damn time. It's called "justifiable homicide" or variations thereof. That happens to be a legal context for killing somebody (dueling used to be another).
The federal government may NOT decide when it is legal or illegal for a private citizen to kill somebody else, because the constitution doesn't say it can. 10th then makes that a State issue. Again, this is why if you murdered your neighbor, the local/state cops arrest you and not the FBI. Right or wrong, homicide is a state level issue. No amendment says "the people can't kill anybody".

Quite frankly, if you think the Feds can have the power to ban abortion, then you also agree they have the power to make justifiable homicide illegal as well. I don't like abortion, but all be goddamned if I'll support giving the Feds more power than they already have (which is wayyyyy tooo much).
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 1:41:53 PM EDT
[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If abortion were left up to the states, you'll end up with the situation that existed prior to Roe v. Wade:  Banned or heavily restricted in most (red) states, legal in a few (blue) states.  And the overall number of abortions would significantly decrease, as the procedure would be largely unavailable except for emergencies in most of the country.

Incidentally, you would also see an increase in adoptable babies, which was the way most unwanted children were disposed of before abortion became legal.


Crime will also likely rise due to more children being born into impoverished and uneducated families, and probably more welfare spending too.  And some babies might be carried for adoption, others will resort to the coat hanger.


Not likely.  Abortion was illegal throughout the '40s and '50s but crime rates remained about as low as today.

And welfare spending is not a function of the birthrate, but of how much the government wants to spend.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 1:46:08 PM EDT
[#50]
Yes, it should be a federal matter.

Self determination is a core value of what makes this country free for all of us.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top