Have you ever read the Roe v Wade decision?

Have you ever read the Roe v Wade decision?

  • Yes, I generally agree with it

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Yes, I generally disagree with it

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • No, I generally agree with it

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • No, I generally disagree with it

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Only selected excerpts of it, I generally agree with it

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Only selected excerpts of it, I generally disagree with it

    Votes: 5 25.0%

  • Total voters
    20

philibusters

Active Member
I don't think I ever read the whole thing, but I read large portions of it (probably 20 to 30 pages of it.)

I think its a little weak in figuring out which standard of review to apply and very weak in applying that standard of review.

On figuring out the standard of review I cannot remember how they got to the conclusion that it was a fundamental right. I think they had the Griswold case from before. They must have said some history and tradition supported it was a fundamental right--was Roe or Griswold the pennumbra reasoning? I cannot remember what history and tradition they cited and if it was the penumbra (sp?) case, then its weak to say it sort of falls under the umbrella of a lot of the Constitution so we will protect it even if no specific history and tradition support its a fundamental right. I cannot remember if Roe v. Wade made an implicit in a an ordered concept of liberty argument either. You tell I don't know the case too well.

In the end, I am less upset that strict scrutiny was applied though. Women do have a significant interest in their bodies. I am more upset with the application of strict scrutiny.

As for the apply strict scrutiny--protecting human life is ALWAYS, ALWAYS a compelling state interest and there is no way to protect the life itself with being able to ban abortions. Whether the fetus is viable (can live on its own without its mother is interesting to analyze legally) but lots of people without medicine and breathing tanks would die yet obviously the state still has an interest an protecting their safety. I don't like the three trisemster division by the court. I just feel that to me its clear the state has a compelling interest in protecting the fetus from conception.
 
Last edited:

migtig

aka Mrs. Giant
Yes, and there are selected excerpts I disagree with. However I think it is more of a moral principle than an issue with the law.

Honestly, as I've aged and matured and my perspective of the world has changed, as well as my role in it, I discover that I hold different opinions on the same subject, such as abortion, than I did when I was younger. I'm morally against abortion, yet, at the same time, I truly believe you own your own body. I believe that women and young girls will have abortions no matter what and I would rather it was done safely by doctors in a sterile environment than in a back alley with a coat hanger.
 

n0n1m0us3

why so serious
Yes, and there are selected excerpts I disagree with. However I think it is more of a moral principle than an issue with the law.

Honestly, as I've aged and matured and my perspective of the world has changed, as well as my role in it, I discover that I hold different opinions on the same subject, such as abortion, than I did when I was younger. I'm morally against abortion, yet, at the same time, I truly believe you own your own body. I believe that women and young girls will have abortions no matter what and I would rather it was done safely by doctors in a sterile environment than in a back alley with a coat hanger.

Same here. My feelings too have changed as I've gotten older. I used to be staunchly against abortion. Having had kids of my own I know that pregnancy is not nothing. I'd rather have women have safe abortions available than the black-market, or self performed versions.
I also think that safe and legal abortion means less babies in trash cans.
 

ImnoMensa

New Member
Have you ever read the Roe v Wade decision?

I was forced to check No, but I generally disagree with it, Now I know that leaves me open to a charge of hypocrisy, because how can I disagree with something I never read?

But when the lady Roe v.Wade was written for comes out against it, I have to wonder how great a piece of legislation it is.

I also see the figures of 40% of pregnancies in New York
are ended by abortion. With 60% of those abortions carried out on black women..
Clergy Slam NYC's 40% Abortion Rate - Gothamist

Now if blacks saw a story stating that 60% of their population were being slaughtered, they would rise up in a Civil war this country would be on fire.
Yet it is fact in New York city and they accept it. This is a definition of Genocide in it's worst form, but it is ignored, probably because it is self inflicted.

I am not a rabid pro life person. I can see the need for some abortions, but is 3700 a day not a bit much?

Now if a person needs an abortion, and they make that decision, why should my tax money have to pay for it? I know my tax money doesnt always pay for it. sometime they have health insurance, but does not that raise my premiums? In essence my paying for it again.

Make abortion like cosmetic surgery, you want it , you pay the price.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Read excerpts and generally disagree with it.

Roe v. Wade makes an official joke of the constitution and has been the backbone for every politician since who basically takes the oath and then proceeds to piss all over it.

Roe = What should we make up this week?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I have read it and believe it's something that should have been left up to each state to decide.
 

n0n1m0us3

why so serious
I was forced to check No, but I generally disagree with it, Now I know that leaves me open to a charge of hypocrisy, because how can I disagree with something I never read?

But when the lady Roe v.Wade was written for comes out against it, I have to wonder how great a piece of legislation it is.

I also see the figures of 40% of pregnancies in New York
are ended by abortion. With 60% of those abortions carried out on black women..
Clergy Slam NYC's 40% Abortion Rate - Gothamist

Now if blacks saw a story stating that 60% of their population were being slaughtered, they would rise up in a Civil war this country would be on fire.

Yet it is fact in New York city and they accept it. This is a definition of Genocide in it's worst form, but it is ignored, probably because it is self inflicted.

I am not a rabid pro life person. I can see the need for some abortions, but is 3700 a day not a bit much?

Now if a person needs an abortion, and they make that decision, why should my tax money have to pay for it? I know my tax money doesnt always pay for it. sometime they have health insurance, but does not that raise my premiums? In essence my paying for it again.

Make abortion like cosmetic surgery, you want it , you pay the price.

Ok, I guess no black people have read any articles on NYC's outrageous abortion statistics, although this is an actual improvement over the numbers of previous years past.
Newsflash, black people do know about the numbers and unless they decided to riot without me there is not going to be an uprising. I guess I better contact the rest of the negros and see if they're trying to ditch me when we rise up in Civil War over this and set the nation on fire.
 

ylexot

Super Genius
How about an option for just a simple "No"? I can't agree or disagree with the decision since I haven't read it. :shrug:
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
How about an option for just a simple "No"? I can't agree or disagree with the decision since I haven't read it. :shrug:

Although I disagree with abortion as a means for birth control, I think the original intent of the law is okay. As with many laws, the intent has been distorted into something that has become somewhat of a monster in our society: abortion on demand, partial birth and late-term abortions, and in some very extreme cases post birth abortions. Radical interpreters of the law seem bent on leading this down the road to infanticide. A very disturbing trend.

But I don't think it's a decision that belongs at the federal level.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Although I disagree with abortion as a means for birth control, I think the original intent of the law is okay. As with many laws, the intent has been distorted into something that has become somewhat of a monster in our society: abortion on demand, partial birth and late-term abortions, and in some very extreme cases post birth abortions. Radical interpreters of the law seem bent on leading this down the road to infanticide. A very disturbing trend.

But I don't think it's a decision that belongs at the federal level.

Roe has nothing to do with abortion. It was settled on the non existent absolute right to privacy, that the government has zero interest in what one does with their body in privacy.

My problem with the law is on that basis; an absurd legal construct used to achieve a specific legislative outcome.
 

ImnoMensa

New Member
Ok, I guess no black people have read any articles on NYC's outrageous abortion statistics, although this is an actual improvement over the numbers of previous years past.
Newsflash, black people do know about the numbers and unless they decided to riot without me there is not going to be an uprising. I guess I better contact the rest of the negros and see if they're trying to ditch me when we rise up in Civil War over this and set the nation on fire.

You left out the part where I said
Yet it is fact in New York city and they accept it. This is a definition of Genocide in it's worst form, but it is ignored, probably because it is self inflicted.

I certainly don't look for a great uprising because of black abortions ,since you admit that Negroes do know the figures ,it is obviously accepted, but a bit surprising that so many , such as you ,appear to accept it .

I abhor the abortion of 3700 people a day black, white or any other color, whereas it doesn't bother some people. Remember these are not my figures .
Maybe you should contact the rest of the Negro's and point out the fact that they may be aborting the next George Washington Carver, or Martin Luther King. Maybe you should look into your own acceptance of this practice.
 

n0n1m0us3

why so serious
You left out the part where I said


I certainly don't look for a great uprising because of black abortions ,since you admit that Negroes do know the figures ,it is obviously accepted, but a bit surprising that so many , such as you ,appear to accept it .

I abhor the abortion of 3700 people a day black, white or any other color, whereas it doesn't bother some people. Remember these are not my figures .
Maybe you should contact the rest of the Negro's and point out the fact that they may be aborting the next George Washington Carver, or Martin Luther King. Maybe you should look into your own acceptance of this practice.

I can only speak for myself on this point but I do believe that if I have read these articles and am aware of these numbers that other blacks would be to. I guess I'll have to bring it up at the next meeting and ask the other Negros if they have managed to hear anything about this.

Btw that first paragraph was torturous to read with the bizarrely placed spaces, commas and apostrophes.
 

hotmomma

mmmmhmmmmm
Did "Jane Roe" end up having the child or did she have an abortion? I would hate to be that child knowing my mother did everything she could to get rid of me.
 

migtig

aka Mrs. Giant
Did "Jane Roe" end up having the child or did she have an abortion? I would hate to be that child knowing my mother did everything she could to get rid of me.

Norma McCorvey had the baby and placed it up for adoption. She is also a Pro-Life activist.
 

philibusters

Active Member
Roe has nothing to do with abortion. It was settled on the non existent absolute right to privacy, that the government has zero interest in what one does with their body in privacy.

My problem with the law is on that basis; an absurd legal construct used to achieve a specific legislative outcome.

I am going to have to disagree with your analysis of the case there. The court had earlier said there was privacy right, but the case decided whether abortions were included within that privacy right. Roe v. Wade wasn't about debating whether there was a privacy right and then just assume abortions fell under that right. Rather the case dealt with abortions and whether that could fall under the fundamental right to privacy.

Second, the application of strict scrutiny focused solely on the basics of abortions, hence the different rules for the trimesters. Roe v. Wade for example, said states could prohibit abortions once the baby is viable (the moment where it could live on its own even with the help of machines if it was taken out of its mother) and said that for purposes of clarity it would be assumed that a fetus in the third trimester could survive on its own.
 
Top